


















Class 



'J 3 


Book_ hs! b L 





COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 
















































































The Taj Mahal, Agra, India. 

Built by Shah Jehan as a memorial to his favorite wife. 














ALLYN AND BACON’S SERIES OF SCHOOL HISTORIES 


THE STORY OF 

» 

MODERN PROGRESS 


WITH A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


REVISED EDITION 


BY 

WILLIS MASON WEST 

• * ' 

SOMETIME PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT 
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 


-OO^C 


ALLYN and BACON 

BOSTON • NEW YORK CHICAGO 

SAN FRANCISCO 


ATLANTA 





WEST’S HISTORIES 


12mo, cloth, numerous maps, and illustrations 



THE ANCIENT WORLD 


THE MODERN WORLD 
HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
AMERICAN HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT 
SOURCE BOOK IN AMERICAN HISTORY 
THE STORY OF MAN’S EARLY PROGRESS 
THE STORY OF MODERN PROGRESS 
THE STORY OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 
THE STORY OF WORLD PROGRESS 
A SHORT HISTORY OF EARLY PEOPLES 
A SHORT HISTORY OF MODERN PEOPLES 


COPYRIGHT, 1920 AND 1923 
BY WILLIS MASON WEST 


EAT 


OCT 31 V3 


©C1A7C064.J 





FOREWORD 


My Modern History, of eighteen years ago, and its successor, 
The Modern World, taught insistently, and, for long in rather 
lonely fashion, the perils in Prussian militarism and autocracy. 
In 1902, when worship of Bismarckian “efficiency” was at its 
height in America and England, after presenting details, I ven¬ 
tured to sum up this matter thus ( Modern History, page 477): 

The story of the making of Germany shows plainly 
enough that the process was one not merely of “ blood and 
iron ” but also of fraud and falsehood. It is hard to tell the 
story of such gigantic and successful audacity and craft 
without seeming to glorify it. . . . Bismarck’s success 
has tended too, probably, to lower the tone of international 
morality; and his policy of fraud and violence has left to 
Germany a legacy of burning questions which will grieve 
it long. The rule of the drill-sergeant and of the police 
officer, the hostility to the Empire felt by the Danes of 
Sleswig and the French of Alsace-Lorraine, the bitter 
jealousy between Prussia and Bavaria, and the immense 
armies of all Europe are among the results of his policy. 

It is too early yet to say that that policy is truly victorious d 

Because of this anti-Prussianism, the book suffered heavily 
in the years before the war from both open and secret pro- 
German attacks. But when the war came, no hurried revision 
was necessary to justify the volume to American schools. Nor 
is any change of attitude on these matters needed now. 

1 July 9, 1918, when the last German drive was still at its high tide of 
success, and Haig was fighting almost despairingly, “with our backs to the 
wall,” the Kolnische Zeitung, in an exultant editorial, quoted this paragraph, 
and added: 

“Don’t think you are listening to Lloyd George or Wilson delivering one 
of their speeches dripping with hypocritical morality. No, this stuff is in 
a schoolbook of that country which we believed friendly to us ! Here are the 
roots of hatred to Germany. ... We must change all this after the war." 

iii 


IV 


FOREWORD 


But in all history textbooks there is now needed a change 
of emphasis and of distribution of time. The past six years 
bulk big, and they throw searching light back over earlier 
years. For purposes of instruction, we must re-inventory all 
recent history. High-school classes will wish to give to the 
peiiod since 18/1 double the time which has been given here¬ 
tofore. That means we must cut down somewhere else. The 
new two-book series, of which this is one volume, meets this 
need by moving forward several centuries the point at which 
serious study of Modern history is to begin. 


At the same time, the Story of Modern Progress is not a 
revision of the Modern World , I have taken glad advantage 
of the chance to write a new book, better suited, I hope, to 
elementary high-school students; and I have used the treat¬ 
ment in the Modern World only when I have found it simpler 
and clearer than any change I could make to-day. 

Thioughout, an unusual amount of space is given to English 
history. For American students a knowledge of that history 
is particularly essential. English history gains, however, by 

in an insular way, but in its setting in the 
history of the continent of Europe. And time consideration 
makes this method more and more imperative. Seemingly, 
the high-school course in history must content itself with three 
years. In that case, one year must go to a background of early 
uman progress, down to the Reformation or later; a second 
year, to modern progress; and the third, to American history 
and citizenship. But no such plan can meet the end desired, 
unless particular stress is placed in the second year upon Eng¬ 
land s part. With such arrangement, it is possible, I believe 
to teach the valuable lessons of English history more emphati¬ 
cally, and with almost as much of detail, as in a separate year 
upon that isolated subject. 

In any course, American history is sure of a place by itself. 
That is reason enough for omitting it in this volume, except 
where the connection of events demands its introduction. When 


FOREWORD 


V 


touched at all here, it is treated from the viewpoint of world- 
development, rather than from a restricted American position. 
The colonization of the seventeenth century is presented as 
an expansion of Europe, and especially of England, into New 
Worlds; the “Intercolonial Wars” of the eighteenth century 
are seen as part of the hundred-year struggle between France 
and England for world-empire and exclusive markets; American 
industrial invention in the nineteenth century appears as part 
of the general Industrial Revolution; the recent advance of 
America into world-politics is presented as part of the new 
international relations and new trade relations that followed 
the partition of Africa and the opening of the Orient in the 
closing decades of the nineteenth century; while the domi¬ 
nant attention given in these pages to America’s part in the 
World War, both in Europe and at home, corresponds merely 
to the new significance of our country in world development. 

X 

In my Modern World I give the first seventh of the book to 
a brief summary of earlier history. This has proved a popular 
and, I am assured, a helpful feature, and I use it again here. 
With the additional centuries to be covered (including the 
supremely important Renaissance period), this introductory 
survey takes a sixth of the volume. It may be omitted, at the 
discretion of the instructor. If used, it may serve as a review 
of a first-year study. Or it may be used to give at least some 
background in a two-year history course concerned only with 
Modern and American history. Indeed, if high schools do find 
themselves forced to abandon their three-year history courses 
(for part of their students), some such feature in the text on 
Modern history becomes imperative. And even if the intro¬ 
ductory survey is not used at all in class, it may perhaps still 
be justified as a means of convenient reference for the student. 
I have embodied in it here every historical event to which the 
later pages make any reference. 

Long or short, the high-school course in history must leave 
no chasm between past and present. It must put the student 


VI 


FOREWORD 


into sympathetic touch with the social movements of to-day. 
It must give him robust interest in the world-struggle between 
democracy and reaction, in the “war upon poverty,” in the 
threat of Socialism, and in the promise of labor organization. 
This volume will achieve its purpose if it helps American youth, 
in this way, toward better citizenship. 

Willis Mason West 

Windago Farm 
January 1, 1920 


In this edition, in order to incorporate recent developments 
in the fitting places, I have completely recast the last hundred 
and fifty pages. This has involved some condensation and 
elimination of minor matters; but I have taken advantage of 
the opportunity to expand considerably the old treatment of 
Japan and China and Spanish America, along with that of 
such other topics as the significance of trade imperialism and 
the scientific progress of the past century. 

Willis Mason West 


March 1, 1923 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 


List of Illustrations .xi 

List of Maps .xv 


INTRODUCTION: A SURVEY OF EARLIER 

PROGRESS 

PERIOD 

I. From Stone Age to Roman Empire 1 

II. The Roman World.12 

The two prosperous centuries — the two centuries of 
decline — Christianity and the Empire. 

III. Merging of Roman and Teuton, 378-815 a.d. . . 27 

Four centuries of confusion — Franks, Mohamme¬ 
dans, and Popes. 

IV. Charlemagne’s Empire. 46 

V. The Feudal Age, 800-1300 a.d ..54 

New barbarian inroads — Britain becomes England 
— Feudalism — Medieval Church — England in the 
Feudal Age — France — Other Lands — the Crusades 
— Rise of Towns — Learning and Art. 

VI. The Close of the Middle Ages, 1300-1520. . . 105 

England and France — the Papacy — Other States 
— Europe politically (the “New Monarchies” and the 
Hapsburg Powers) — the Renaissance. 


PART I. AGE OF THE REFORMATION, 1520-1648 

CHAPTER 

I. The Reformation upon the Continent . . . 137 

Lutheranism — Calvinism — the Counter-Reforma¬ 
tion. 


vii 




Vlll 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

II. England and the Protestant Movement 

III. A Century of Religious Wars . 

Spain and the Netherlands — Wars of the French 
Huguenots — the Thirty Years’ War in Germany — 
Progress in Science. 

PART II. ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH 

CENTURY 

IV. English Industry in 1600 . 

V. Puritan England — under the First Two Stuarts 

VI. The Great Rebellion and the Commonwealth 

VII. The Restoration and the Revolution of 1688 

With excursus on development of cabinet govern¬ 
ment into the 18th century. 

VIII. Expansion into New Worlds. 

PART III. THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV AND 
FREDERICK II, 1648-1789 

IX. French Leadership 

•••••• 

X. Rise of Russia. 

XI. Prussia in Europe England in New WUrlds 

PART IV. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 

XII. On the Eve 

The Abuses the Spirit of Change — the Govern¬ 
ment s Attempts at Reform. 

XIII. The Revolution before Foreign Intervention 

1789-1791 

*••••• 

XIV. The Approach op War — Despots against Peoples 

XV. The Revolution in War, 1792-1799 

Fall of the Monarchy and the Girondists — 
Jacobin Rule — The Directory. 

XVI. The Rise of Napoleon 


PAGK 

153 

166 


181 

186 

201 

207 

217 


229 

235 

240 


252 


269 

283 

288 


. 305 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


IX 


CHAPTER pAQE 

XVII. The Consulate, 1799-1804 . . . ' .310 

XVIII. The French Empire, 1804-1814 .... 314 

PART V. REACTION, 1815-1848 
XIX. The Congress of Vienna ..... 327 

XX. Central Europe to 1820 334 

XXI. The South of Europe — Revolutions of 1820 340 
XXII. France and the Revolutions of 1830 . . 347 

PART VI. ENGLAND AND THE INDUSTRIAL 

REVOLUTION 

XXIII. The Revolution in Methods of Work . . 352 

XXIV. TheIRe VOLUTION IN THE LlVES OF THE WORKERS 370 
XXV. The Revolution in Ideas about Government 381 

PART VII. CONTINENTAL EUROPE, 

1848-1871 

XXVI. The Revolution of 1848 385 

In France — in Central Europe (Austrian 
Empire, Germany, Italy). 

XXVII. Western Europe from 1848 to 1871 . . 402 

The Second Empire in France — the Making 
of Italy — the Making of Germany. 


PART VIII. ENGLAND, 1815-1914 
XXVIII. The “First Reform Bill,” 1832 . . . 425 

XXIX. Political Reform in the Victorian Age . . 439 

XXX. Social Reform in the Victorian Age . . 450 

XXXI. England and the Irish Question . . . 460 

XXXII. English Colonies and Dependencies . . 465 

XXXIII. Recent Reform in England to 1914 " . . 478 



X 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PART IX. CONTINENTAL EUROPE, 1871-1914 


CHAPTER 

XXXIV. 

France : Close of the Franco-Prussian War 

PAGE 

485 

XXXV. 

Establishment of the Third Republic, 
1879 . 

1871- 

490 

XXXVI. 

France under the Third Republic, to 1914 

495 

XXXVII. 

The German Empire, 1871-1918 . 


503 

XXXVIII. 

Italy since 1870 . . . 


525 

XXXIX. 

The Small States of Western Europe 


529 

XL. 

Switzerland. 


546 

XLI. 

Russia, to 1914. 


551 


PART X. THE WORLD IN 1914 



XLII. 

The Promise of a New Age before 1914 . 

Scientific Progress — Social Uplift — Democ¬ 
racy Triumphant 

563 

XLIII. 

World Politics to 1914 

Encroachments upon Africa and Asia 
pan — China — European Alliances — 
national Arbitration 

— Ja- 
Inter- 

570 


PART XI. THE WORLD WAR 



XLIV. 

The Conflagration Bursts Forth 

The Balkan fuse — Germany Wills It 

• • 

590 

XLV. 

The War before America Entered . 

• • 

604 

XLVI. 

The War after America Joined 

• • 

621 

XLVII. 

The World since the War (1919-1923) 

• • 

638 

Appendix — 

- Book Lists for High School Libraries 

• • 

l 

Index and 

Pronouncing Vocabulary 

• « 

7 




ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 


Stone Fist-hatchet .... 3 

Stages in Firemaking ... 3 

Sphinx and Pyramids ... 4 

Egyptian Noble Hunting 

Waterfowl. 5 

Cretan Writing of 2200 b.c. 6 
Cretan Cooking Utensils of 

2200 b.c. 7 

Assyrian Colossal Man-beast 8 

The Hermes of Praxiteles . . 9 

The Acropolis of Athens “Re¬ 
stored” .11 

A Roman Chariot Race . . 12 

Roman Aqueduct near Nlmes 13 

Remains of Greek Temple at 
Paestum.14 


Court of the House of Yetii at 


Pompeii.16 

German Bodyguard of Marcus 
Aurelius — a detail from a 
triumphal column .... 20 

Remains of a Roman Villa near 

Tivoli.21 

Agricultural Serfs in Roman 

Gaul.23 

Serfs Making Bread in Roman 

Gaul.23 

Roman Coins of the Empire . 24 

Jerusalem To-day .... 26 

Silver Coin of Justinian . . 30 

St. Sophia, Constantinople . 31 

Preliminary to a Judicial 

Combat.32 

Trial by Combat.33 


Seventh Century Wooden Villa ‘ 
in Gaul (a “restoration”) 35 


PAGE 

Abbey of Citeaux.36 

Monks in Field Work ... 37 

Repast of a Frankish Noble . 38 

Mosque of El Azhar at Cairo 40 
Church of St. John Lateran at 

Rome.43 

Cloisters of St. John Lateran 44 

Seal of Charlemagne ... 46 

Servingman with Lamp, time 
of Charlemagne .... 47 

Silver Coin of Charlemagne . 49 

Conway Castle.54 

St. Martin’s, near Canterbury 57 

Drawbridge and Portcullis . 60 

Bodiam Castle.61 

Knight in Plate Armor ... 62 

An Act of Homage .... 63 

A Baron’s Court.64 

Ancient Manor House at 


Melichope.63 

Window of Melichope Manor 

House.65 

Villeins Receiving Directions 66 

Reaper’s Cart, Fourteenth 

Century.67 

Peasants’ May Day Dance . 68 

Falconry.69 

The Quintain.70 

A Court Fool.71 

Jugglers in the Thirteenth 

Century.72 

Anglo-Saxon Plowing ... 77 

Battle of Hastings — Bayeux 
Tapestry.78 


Norman Doorway, Canter¬ 
bury Cathedral. 79 


















Xll 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Opening Lines of Magna Carta 
— Facsimile. 

PAGE 

80 

Village Merrymaking, Six¬ 
teenth Century . 

Interior of Hall of Stoke 
Manor House. 

83 

Tewksbury Abbey . . . . 
Sir Thomas More . . . . 

English Family Dinner, Four¬ 
teenth Century .... 

84 

Kenilworth Castle in 1620 . . 

Kenilworth Castle To-day . . 

Jugglers in the Sword Dance . 

85 

Queen Elizabeth. 

Window in Mosque at Cor¬ 
dova . 

89 

Van Dyck’s Charles I . . . 

Lely’s Cromwell. 

A Byzant. 

90 

Sir Harry Vane. 

Crusader Taking the Vow 

92 

Monk and Globe, Thirteenth 

Effigies of Knights Templar . 

93 

Century . 

Siege of a Medieval Town 

95 

Columbus before Ferdinand 

Medieval Town Hall, Oude- 


and Isabella. 

narde . 

96 

La Salle Taking Possession of 

Old Street in Rouen To-day 

98 

the Mississippi Valley for 

Medieval Torture by Water . 

99 

France . 

Interior of Hall of Merchant 
Gild at Dantzig (1300 a.d.) 

101 

Queen Elizabeth at Tilbury 
Fort. 

Salisbury Cathedral .... 

102 

St. Basil’s, Moscow . 

Salisbury Cloisters .... 

103 

Revolutionary Swords Crossed 

English Lady, Fourteenth 
Century . 

105 

Voltaire. 

Fall of the Bastille . 

French Dress in Fourteenth 
Century. 

105 

Bonaparte at Areola .... 
The Vendome Column . 

A Bombard, Sixteenth Cen¬ 
tury . 

106 

Napoleon toward the Close 
Napoleon Leaving Moscow 

John Wyclif. 

107 

Farm Tools'in 1800 . 

Costly English Carriage, Four¬ 
teenth Century. 

109 

Modern Tractor Plowing . 
Spinning Wheel . . . 

Bridge in Rural England, 
Fourteenth Century . . . 

110 

Modern Spinning Machinery 
A Primitive Loom .... 

The “Good Parliament” of 
1399 . 

112 

A Modern Loom. 

An Early Cotton Gin . . 

A Medieval Battle .... 

113 

Steel Works at Pueblo . . . 

Joan of Arc at Orleans . . . 

114 

Fulton’s Clermont 

Hall of Clothmakers, Ypres . 

124 

First Steam Railway Train in 

Illustration from a Fifteenth 
Century Manuscript . . . 

127 

America, 1831. 

Harvesting in 1831 . . . . 

St. Mark’s, Venice .... 

130 

Harvesting To-day .... 

Ducal Palace, Venice 

131 

Time Card of Providence Ma- 

St. Peter’s, Rome. 

138 

chine Shop, 1848 .... 


PAGB 

148 

155 

157 

160 

161 

163 

194 

202 

204 

219 

220 


223 

226 

236 

247 

261 

273 

306 

316 

323 

324 

354 

355 

356 

357 

358 

359 

360 

363 

364 

365 

366 

367 

376 









ILLUSTRATIONS 


• • • 
Xlll 


Joseph Mazzini. 

PAGE 

400 

Thiers (Bonnat). 

PAGE 

491 

“France is Tranquil” (under 


Bismarck. 

520 

Napoleon III). 

405 

Sogndal, Norway. 

542 

Garibaldi’s Monument, Turin 

411 

Interlaken, Switzerland . 

548 

Cavour (Desmaisons’ Litho- 


The Kremlin, Moscow . 

558 

graph). 

412 

Forging a Car Axle To-day 

564 

Proclamation of the German 


Electric Railway Engine 

566 

Empire. 

423 

The Christ of the Andes 

586 

Queen Victoria (Landseer) . 

440 

The Congress of Berlin, 1878 . 

593 

Gladstone. 

442 

Ferdinand Foch. 

605 

The First Adhesive Postage 


A German Submarine 

616 

Stamp. 

453 

Field Marshal Haig .... 

619 

Parliament Buildings at West- 


American Airplane FDet 

628 

minster. 

455 

John J. Pershing. 

629 

Railway Station at Bombay . 

467 

The “Big Four” at Paris . 

640 

Canadian Parliament Building 

473 

Constantinople and the Golden 


Lloyd George in 1909 

479 

Horn. 

645 


FULL PAGE PLATES 

(Not numbered as pages) 


The Taj Mahal, Agra, India ; Colored .... Frontispiece 

PACINO PAGE 

Rheinstein, a Medieval Castle on the Rhine ; Colored . . . 124 

Elizabeth Knighting Drake on Board the Golden Hind ; Colored . 162 

Windsor Castle; Colored ......... 432 

Two Views of the Panama Canal ....... 563 

Hasedera Temple, Japan ......... 574 

The Wall of Peking .......... 575 

World War Scenes . . . . . . . . . .611 

Rheims Cathedral before Bombardment . . . . . .612 

Rheims Cathedral in Conflagration ....... 613 

The Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey; Colored . . 618 

World War Scenes .......... 634 

World War Scenes .......... 635 

Clemenceau Delivering the Treaty to German Delegates . . . 648 

Lloyd George and Aristide Briand ....... 649 













MAPS 


1. 

First Homes of Civilization ; Colored .... 

after 

PAGE 

4 

2. 

Persian Empire and Greece; Colored .... 

i i 

8 

3. 

Roman Empire, with Leading Roads ; Colored . 

a 

14 

4. 

Germanic Kingdoms on Roman Soil; Colored 

i i 

28 

5. 

Kingdom of the Merovingians; Colored 

it 

38 

6. 

Europe in the Time of Charles the Great; Colored 

it 

48 

7. 

The Field of Ancient History, to 800 a.d. 


51 

8. 

Carolingian Realms at the Division of Verdun; Colored 

after 

54 

9. 

England and the Danelagh, 900 a.d . 


58 

10. 

England and France, 1154-1453 (four maps) ; Colored 

facing 

85 

11. 

German Colonization toward the East, 800-1400; Colored 

t< 

87 

12. 

Germany and Italy, 1254-1273 ; Colored 

after 

88 

13. 

The Eastern Empire, 1000-1200 ..... 


91 

14. 

Germany about 1550 ; Colored. 

after 

118 

15. 

The Ottoman Dominions at Their Greatest Extent 


120 

16. 

Swiss Confederacy, 1291-1500 . 


122 

17. 

Europe under Charles V; Colored .... 

after 

144 

18. 

The Netherlands at the Truce of 1609 .... 


169 

19. 

Territorial Changes of the Thirty Years’ War; Colored 

facing 

177 

20. 

English America, 1660-1690 ; Colored . 

i i 

227 

21. 

European Possessions in America at Different Periods, 1664-1775 



(three maps); Colored. 

facing 

245 

22. 

Prussia at the Death of Frederick II . 


248 

23. 

Europe, 1740-1789; Colored. 

facing 

249 

24. 

Europe in 1802 ; Colored. 

ii 

310 

25. 

Europe in 1810 ; Colored. 

it 

323 

26. 

Europe in 1815 ; Colored. 

after 

330 

27. 

Germanic Confederation, 1815-1867 ; Colored 

i c 

336 

28. 

Races of Austria-Hungary, about 1850 ; Colored . 

facing 

393 

29. 

Prussia, 1815-1867 .... 


419 

30. 

The German Empire, 1871-1914 ; Colored 

after 

506 

31. 

Africa in 1914 ; Colored .... 

it 

572 

32. 

World Powers in 1914 ; Colored . 

after 

582 

33. 

The Balkan States, 1912-1913 .... 

. 

595 


XIV 




MAPS 


XV 


34. Europe in 1914; Colored ...... after 

35. Kingdom of Italy, 1860 and 1919 . . . . facing 

36. Losses of Russia at Brest-Litovsk .... 

37. The West Front; German Lines, July 15, November 10, 1918 

38. Europe in 1920; Colored ...... after 


PAGE 

602 

610 

632 

633 
644 













THE STORY OF MODERN PROGRESS 


“ The chief interest in history lies in the fact that it is not yet fnished, ” 

A BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

-- 

FIRST PERIOD 

FROM STONE AGE TO ROMAN EMPIRE 

November 11, 1918, at an early morning hour, the representa¬ 
tives of Germany accepted the terms of armistice dictated by 
Marshal Foch, commander-in-chief of the Allies. Within three 
hours, nearly every steam whistle in America was sounding the 
glad tidings of Germany’s surrender. Only a few miles from Gen¬ 
eral Foch’s headquarters where the armistice was signed is the 
city of Ghent. There, about a hundred years before (December 
14, 1814), a peace was signed between England and the United 
States. But almost four weeks after the signing of that peace, 
many gallant lives were sacrificed in the Battle of New Orleans 
because the news of Ghent had not reached America. Indeed, the 
War of 1812 would not have been fought except for misunder¬ 
standings which steamships and electric cables would have 
cleared up promptly. 

In everyday matters, too, the changes of the last hundred years 
or so are quite as marked. When George Washington journeyed 
from Mount Vernon to New York, in 1789, to take up his duties 
as President, he made the wearisome twelve-day trip on horse¬ 
back. At Philadelphia he might have taken the slow, jolting 
stage-coach for the rest of the way; but both for speed and 
comfort, he chose to keep to his horse. To-day we make that 


Rapid 
change 
during the 
last century 




2 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Like change, 

though 

slower, 

during two 

hundred 

centuries 


journey in a night, resting in a cosy compartment of a sleeper 
or reading at ease by brilliant electric lamps. 

The tallow candle and the pine-knot fire on the hearth were 
the best artificial lights in the days of Washington. Abraham 
Lincoln knew no better light until late in his life, when kerosene 
lamps came into use. No woman in Lincoln’s presidency ever 
cooked by a gas range, and no woman in Washington’s time 
ever cooked by any sort of iron stove. Washington was one 
of the leading farmers of his day; but a wooden plow and a 
clumsy harrow were the only farm machinery drawn by horses 
that he ever saw. Even the small reapers and threshers of 
Lincoln’s time are now fit only for some museum of curiosities. 

Carpenters and masons now work eight hours a day; but until 
long after Washington s day no laborer ever dreamed of working 
less than fourteen hours in summer — and he worked for a much 
smaller wage than our workmen for our shorter laboring day. 
The palaces of kings a century ago had fewer actual comforts 

and conveniences than the modest homes of well-paid laborers 
to-day. 

At first it is hard to understand that such changes had been 
going on for long ages before Lincoln and Washington. Twenty 
thousand years ago no one traveled even in Washington’s way. 
There were no coaches, for no one had found how to make a 
wheel; and, though the wild horse was hunted for food, no one 
had tamed it. Indeed there was no need to travel. No man 
could possibly want to go from the Potomac to the Hudson. If 
two men living a score of miles apart met at all, the stronger 
killed and plundered the weaker. 

History is the story of human progress from that early sav¬ 
agery to our present civilization. 


Early 

savagery 


The first men were more helpless and brutelike than the 
lowest savages ,n the world to-day. They had neither fire nor 
knife-no tools or weapons except their hands, their formidable 
teeth, and chance clubs or stones. The first marked gain was 
the discovery by some savage that he could chip off flakes from 


FROM STONE TO BRONZE 3 

a flint stone by striking it in a certain way with other stones, 
so as to give it a sharp edge and a convenient shape for the 
hand to grasp. This invention lifted man into the Stone Age. 

Remains in the soil 
show us that men be¬ 
gan to use stone tools 
at least 100,000 years 
ago. The earliest re¬ 
mains often lie buried 
deep under layers of 
earth deposits that con¬ 
tain the different sorts 
of tools of succeeding 
ages: In general, the 
tools in the upper 
layers are better than 
those in the lower ones; 
and so by studying 
these relics, from the 
bottom layers upward, 
we can trace something 
of the order of man’s 
development in those uncounted thousands of years in which 
our forefathers were learning to take the first stumbling steps 
up from savagery. 



Stone Fist-hatchet found in Suabia.—*- 
Now in the British Museum. 



Some Stages in Firemaking. — From Tylor. 


Five gains during the long Stone Age were beyond price: 
the use of fire; the beginning of language; the taming of the 



















4 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Gains in 
the Stone 
Age 

The 

Bronze Age 
in the 
Orient 


dog, cow, sheep, and other familiar barnyard assistants; the 
discovery of wheat, barley, rice, and most of our other Old- 
World food-plants; and the invention of picture-writing. 

Some seven thousand years ago, in the valleys of the Nile 
and the Euphrates, men learned in some way to replace their 
stone tools with better bronze tools, and soon to improve picture- 



Sphinx, with Pyramids in the distance; ancient Egyptian works.— 

The human head of the Sphinx is opposed to 
have the magnified features of an Egyptian king. It is set upon the 

body of a lion — a symbol of power. One of the pyramids covers 13 acres 
and rises 481 feet in height, — the largest and most massive budding in 
the world to-day. It contains two million huge stone blocks, some of 
which singly weigh more than fifty tons. * 


writing into the rebus stage so that a picture might stand for 
a syllable, or for a group of sounds, instead of for an object. 

Then a connected story could be told in writing — and so true 
history began. 

These Bronze-age Egyptians and Babylonians practiced 
many arts and crafts with skill of hand that has never been sur- 










































FROM STONE TO BRONZE 


passed. They built great cities, with pleasant homes for the 
wealthy and with splendid palaces for their princes. They 
built, too, roads and canals. With ships and caravans, they 
sought out the treasures of 

distant regions; and the wealth j j j ® © © @ n | 1 

they heaped up was spent by . _ ^ n 

, . . . Egyptian and Roman Numerals. 

tneir rulers in gorgeous pomp 

and splendor. Our “year” of 365^ days, with the division 
into months, comes to us from the Egyptians through the 
Romans, as do also the sundial and water-clock. Through 


Egyptian Noble hunting Waterfowl with a “ throw-stick ” or boomer¬ 
ang. The wife accompanies her husband, and the boat contains also a 
“decoy” bird. The wild birds rise from a mass of papyrus reeds.— 

From an Egyptian tomb painting. 

the Hebrews, the Babylonians gave us the week, with its And some 

“seventh day of rest for the soul,” and the subdivision of the of . lts 

. . gains 

day into hours and minutes. They invented also an excellent 













6 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Bronze 
culture 
spread by 
Phoenicians 


Persians 

and 

Hebrews 


system of weights, and measures based on the length of the 
hand and foot. They had a system of counting in which they 
used 12 and 60 as we use 10 and 100. The face of a watch 
to-day, with its divisions by twelve and by sixty, recalls their 
work, — as do also the measurement of a circle by degrees, 
minutes, and seconds; the curious figures on our star maps; 

the signs of the zodiac in 
our almanacs; the sym¬ 
bols of our “ apothecaries’ 
table/’ still used by physi¬ 
cians ; some of our fairy 
stories, like that of Cinder¬ 
ella; many of our carpen¬ 
ters’ tools; and much of 
our common kitchen ware. 

War and trade spread 
this “bronze” culture 
slowly around the eastern 
coasts of the Mediterran¬ 
ean ; and, before 1500 b.c., 
Cretan and Phoenician mer¬ 
chants scattered its seeds 
widely in even more distant 
regions with a contribu¬ 
tion of their own infinitely 
important. The commerce of these peoples made it needful 
for them to keep complicated accounts, and to communicate 
w ith agents in distant places; and so, out of the crude earlier 
systems of rebus writing, both Cretans and Phoenicians devel¬ 
oped real alphabets. 

About 630 b.c. all these precious beginnings of civilization 
were imperiled by hordes of savages that poured forth from 
the frozen plains of Scythia in the North. Persia repulsed the 
ravagers, and saved the slow gains of the ages. At the same 
time, she conquered all the civilized East, and united it under 
an effective system of government And finally, toward the close 



Cretan Writing of 2200 b.c. — Some of 
the characters are plainly numerals. 
Others are much like certain later 
Greek letters. 





THE GREEKS 


7 


of these four thousand years of “Oriental history” there grew 
up among the Hebrews a pure worship whose truth and grandeur 
were to influence profoundly the later world. For centuries 

more, however, this religion was the possession of one small 
people. 

Now, happily, appeared the Greeks, — new actors on a new The scene 
stage. About 600 b.c., the center of interest shifted westward shifts t0 
from Asia to southeastern Europe. For two thousand years a 



Cooking Utensils found in one tomb at Knossos, Crete, belonging 

about 2200 b.c. 


European culture had been rising slowly along the coasts and 
islands of the Mediterranean, drawing from the East in handi¬ 
craft, but possessing moral and intellectual traits of its own. 

Oriental states had begun in supremely fertile districts where Greek 

food was almost the free bounty of nature, and where the civilization 
, •ii* , , contrasted 

tropical climate made most men averse to unnecessary exertion, with 

The few with spirit and energy easily made slaves of the mul- 

n V<?1 rfll 

titude. But the sterile soil of Greece demanded more work differences 
from all the people; and its temperate climate encouraged 






8 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Oriental 
submission 
and Greek 
independ¬ 
ence 


Oriental 

sameness 

and 

European 

diversity 


more general enterprise. Men lived more on a level with one 
another than in the East. The benefits of Oriental culture had 
been for the few only: the benefits of Greek culture were to be for 
the many. 

When an Oriental state had grown by conquest into an em¬ 
pire, it spread over vast plains and was bounded by terrible 

immensities of desolate 
deserts. Greece was a 
land of intermingled sea 
and mountain, with every¬ 
thing on a moderate scale. 
There were no deserts. 
No mountains were so as¬ 
tounding as to awe man. 
There were no destructive 
earthquakes, no tremen¬ 
dous storms, no over¬ 
whelming floods. Ori¬ 
ental men had bowed in 
dread and superstition 
before these terrible and 
destructive forces: they 
had feared to inquire, and 
in all things they accepted 
slavishly the traditions 
of their fathers. But in 
Greece, nature was not 
terrible. There men began early to search into her secrets. In¬ 
stead of bowing to tradition, the Greeks thought for themselves. 
Instead of submitting to despotism, they governed themselves. 

Greece was broken up into many small districts. Each division 
was protected from conquest by its sea moats and mountain walls ; 
and each, therefore, became the home of a distinct political state. 
Some of these were busied in agriculture; others, mainly, in trade. 
Some were monarchic in government; others, democratic. These 
differing societies, side by side, reacted wholesomely upon one another. 



Colossal Man-beast in Alabaster.— 
From an Assyrian palace. (Now in 
the British Museum. The photograph 
shows also part of a series of relief sculp¬ 
ture, telling a long story, from the walls 
of the same palace.) 



































































» 


























THE GREEKS 


9 


No doubt, too, the moderation and variety and wondrous 
beauty of hill and dale and sun-lit sea had something to do with 
the many-sided genius of the Greek people and with their 
lively but well-controlled imagination. Oriental art was un¬ 
natural ; it delighted in placing a man’s head upon a beast’s 
body, mingling the monstrous with the human; and in archi¬ 
tecture it sought for colos¬ 
sal size rather than for pro¬ 
portion. But above all 
peoples, before or since, 
the Greeks developed a love 
for harmony and propor¬ 
tion; and their art sought 
for beauty in simplicity 
and naturalness. 

In sculpture, architec¬ 
ture, drama, oratory, 
poetry, and philosophy, 
the Greeks rank still among 
the world’s masters. The 
Oriental contributions to 
the future had been chiefly 
material: the Greek contri¬ 
butions were intellectual and 
spiritual. Above all, the 
Greeks gave us the ideal of freedom regulated by self-control, 
— freedom in politics, in religion, and in thought. 

Moreover , this Greek civilization is essentially one with our own. 
The remains of Egyptian or Babylonian sculpture and archi¬ 
tecture arouse our interest as curiosities; but they are foreign 
to us. With a Greek temple or a Greek poem we feel at home. 
It might have been built or written by an American. Our 
most beautiful buildings use the Greek columns and capitals; 
and some, in spite of our different climate, are copied almost 
wholly from Greek models. Our children still delight in the 
stories that the blind Greek Homer chanted; and the historian 



The Hermes of Praxiteles. — Praxite¬ 
les was one of the most famous Greek 
sculptors. This statue of the god 
Hermes is sadly mutilated, but the 
head and torso are among the finest 
remains of Greek art. 


Oriental 

and 

Greek art 


Greek con¬ 
tributions 
to our 
civilization 





10 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Defects in 

Greek 

culture 


still goes for his model to the Greek Herodotus, “ the father of 
history.” 

Four weak points remained in this dazzling Greek civiliza¬ 
tion : (1) It rested on slavery. (2) It was for males only; 

at best, the wife was only a higher domestic servant. (3) The 
moral side fell far below the intellectual side. Religion had 
little to do with conduct toward men. Some Greek philoso¬ 
phers taught lofty morality; but, on the whole, while no other 
society ever produced so large a proportion of great men, many 
societies have produced more good men. (4) Brilliant as was 
the Greek mind, it did not discover the modern method of 
finding out the secrets of nature by experiment. Consequently 
it did little to increase man’s power over natural forces, and so 
could not produce wealth enough to go around. 


Greece 

and 

Persia 


Leadership 
shifts west 
to Rome 


About 500 b.c., the rising Greek culture was threatened with 
conquest by Persia; but at Marathon and Salamis the little 
Greek states heroically repelled the huge Asiatic empire, and 
saved Western civilization. Two centuries later, through the 
genius of Alexander the Great, the Greeks welded East and West 
into a Graeco-Oriental world. 

But in the end the vast sluggish East would have absorbed 
the small Greek element, had not the latter found reinforcement 
from another European land. Now, happily, the leadership in 
human progress shifts westward once more — to Rome. 

Rome was the central city of Italy, the central Mediter¬ 
ranean land. It began as a village of shepherds and farmers. 
Partly through advantages in geography, more through genius 
in war, most of all through a marvelous power of organization, 
it had grown step by step into the headship of Italy, and was 
ready now to march on to the lordship of the world. First, 
it gave a Latin civilization to the western Mediterranean coasts; 
and then, a century before the birth of Christ, it unified new 
West and old East into a Graeco-Roman world. 

As Greece stands for art and intellectual culture, so Rome 
stands for law and government. The Greeks . aside from their 


THE ROMAN REPUBLIC 


11 


own contributions to civilization, had collected the arts and 
sciences of the older peoples of the Orient. Rome preserved 
this common treasure of mankind, and she herself added legal and 
political institutions that have influenced all later time. 

Still, with all her genius for government, Rome did not hit 
upon our modern plan of representative government. Until 
this plan was discovered, government had to be exercised, at 
best, by those who could meet at one spot. Since this was 
practicable only for a city or a small district, a large state 
could not then remain a free state. While Rome was uniting 
Italy, she was a free city-republic. She succeeded in expanding 
this form of government so that it met fairly well the needs of 
united Italy; but it broke down before the needs of a wide¬ 
spread subject world. For a century the government of the 
ruling city became merely the agent of a selfish moneyed aris¬ 
tocracy which looted the dependent provinces. Then, a little 
before the birth of Christ, Julius Caesar and his successors 
swept away the outgrown “Republic,” and introduced the “Em¬ 
pire,” with the emperor as the despotic but beneficent father 
of the whole Graeco-Roman world. 



A “ Restoration ” (by Lambert) of the Athenian Acropolis, at first 
a citadel, later the “holy hill,” crowned by statues and temples of 
gleaming white marble which are still peerless in loveliness. 


Rome’s 

contribu¬ 

tions 


Failure of 
the Roman 
Republic 











SECOND PERIOD 

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 


Life under 
the Empire 
concen¬ 
trated in 
“ muni- 
cipia ” 


The Roman Empire is the central lake in which all the streams of an¬ 
cient history lose themselves, and which all the streams of modern history 
flow out of. — Freeman 

The Roman world was a broad belt of land stretching east 
and west, from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, with the Mediter¬ 
ranean for its central highway. On the south it was bounded 
by sandy deserts, African and Arabian ; on the north, by stormy 
waters,— the North Sea, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Black 
Sea. Within its vast territory, about as large as the United 
States, were 75,000,000 people. They lived mostly in cities 
(municipia) large and small, throbbing with industry and with 
intellectual life and possessing some local self-government in 
those municipal institutions they were to pass on to us. Gaul 
(France) was Romanized late, after Julius Caesar; but in the 
third century a.d. that district had 116 flourishing cities, with 
public baths, temples, aqueducts, roads, and famous schools 
that drew Roman youth even from the Tiber’s banks. 

Most towns were places of 20,000 people or less, and usually 
each one was merely the center of a farming district; but there 
were also a few great centers of trade, — Rome, with perhaps 
2,000,000 people; Alexandria (in Egypt) and Antioch (in Asia) 

12 






THE ROMAN EMPIRE 


13 



with o00,000 each; and ( orinth, Carthage, Ephesus, and Lyons, 
with some 250,000 apiece. 

These commercial cities were likewise centers of manufac¬ 
tures. The Emperor Hadrian visited Alexandria (about 125 
a.d.) and wrote in a letter : ‘ No one is idle; some work glass; 
some make paper (papyrus); some weave linen. Money is 
the only god. The looms of Sidon and the other old Phoenician 


Industry 

and 

trade 


Roman Aqueduct near Nimes, France : present condition. — From a photo¬ 
graph. This structure was built by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, about 
150 a.d., to bring water from distant mountain springs. Some of these 
Roman aqueducts remained in use until recent days. 

cities turned forth ceaselessly their precious purple cloths. 
Miletus, Rhodes, and other Greek cities of the Asiatic coast 
were famous for their woolen manufactures. Syrian factories 
poured silks, costly tapestries, and fine leather into western 
Europe. The silversmiths of Ephesus were numerous enough 
(Acts, xix, 23-41) to stir up a formidable riot. 

The roads were safe. Piracy ceased from the seas, and trade 
flourished as it was not to flourish again until the days of Co- 












14 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Communica¬ 
tion by sea 
and land 


lumbus. The ports were crowded with shipping, and the 
Mediterranean was spread with happy sails. The grand mili¬ 
tary roads ran in trunk-lines — a thousand miles at a stretch 
— from every frontier toward the central heart of the empire, 
with a dense network of branches in every province. Guide¬ 
books described routes and distances. Inns abounded. The 
imperial couriers that hurried along the great highways passed 



Remains of a Greek Temple at Paestum in Italy.—From a photograph. 
Before 800 b.c. many Greek colonies had been established in Sicily and 
southern Italy, so that these districts were long known as “ Great Greece ” 
(Magna Graecia). These Italian Greeks taught Rome much before her 
rule reached outside of Italy. 

a hundred and fifty milestones a day. The products of one 
region of the empire were known in every other part. Jewelry 
made in Asia Minor was worn by women in the Swiss moun¬ 
tains ; and Italian wines were drunk in Britain and in Cilicia. 
Private travel from the Thames to the Euphrates was swifter, 
safer, and more comfortable than ever again until the age of 
railroads, less than a century ago. 

There was also a vast commerce with regions beyond the bound- 

































































































THE ROMAN EMPIRE 


15 


dries of the empire. As English and Dutch traders, three hun¬ 
dred years ago, journeyed far into the savage interior of America 
foi better bargains in furs, so the indomitable Roman traders 
pressed on into regions where the Roman legions never camped. 
From the Baltic shores they brought back amber, furs, and 
flaxen German hair with which the dark Roman ladies liked to 
adorn their heads. Such goods the trader bought cheaply with 
toys and trinkets and wine. A Latin poet speaks of “ many 
merchants who reaped ‘immense riches” by daring voyages 
over the Indian Ocean “ to the mouth of the Ganges.” India, 
Ceylon, and Malaysia sent to Europe indigo, spices, pearls, 
sapphires, drawing away, in return, vast sums of Roman gold 
and silver. And from shadowy realms beyond India came 
the silk yarn that kept the Syrian looms busy. Chinese annals 
tell of Roman traders bringing to Canton glass and metal 
wares, amber, and drugs. 

Literature and learning flourished. It is impossible here 
even to mention the great numbers of poets, historians, essay¬ 
ists, philosophers, and other writers who made glorious the 
Early Empire. The three great centers of learning were Rome, 
Alexandria, and Athens. In these cities there were universities, 
as we would call them now, with vast libraries (of manuscripts), 
and with many professorships supported by the government. 

Morals grew gentle, and manners were refined. The Letters 
of the author Pliny reveal a society high-minded, refined, and 
virtuous. Pliny himself is a type of the finest gentleman of 
to-day in delicacy of feeling, sensitive honor, and genial courtesy. 
The Emperor Marcus Aurelius shows like qualities on the 
throne. The philosopher Epictetus shows them in a slave. 

Woman secured more freedom and more intellectual culture 
than she was to find again until the nineteenth century. The 
profession of medicine was open to her. She became the equal 
of man before the law, and his companion, not his servant, in 
the home. 

Sympathies broadened. The unity of the vast Roman world 
prepared the way for the thought that all men are brothers. 


The uni 
versities 


Morals 
under the 
Empire 


Woman's 

position 

improved 


16 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Broader 

human 

sympathies 


More hu¬ 
mane law 


Said Marcus Aurelius, “ As emperor I am a Roman; but as a 
man my city is the world.” The age prided itself, justly, upon 
its progress and its humanity, much as our own does. The 
Emperor drajan instructed a provincial governor not to act 
upon anonymous accusations, because such conduct “ does not 



the VelS ThMR Pmvate Residence at Pompeii — the House c 

the Vein The Roman city, Pompeii, was overwhelmed by an eruption c 
ashes and volcanic mud from Vesuvius in 80 a.d. Recent excavatioi 
enables a modern visitor to walk through the streets of an ancient city h 
almost pei feet preservation. The shrubbery in this court, of course is no 

likeTbis 5 b probably the court originally contained shrubbery’ mud 


Mong to our age.” There was a vast amount of private and 
public charity, with homes for orphans and hospitals for the poor. 

This broad humanity was reflected in imperial law. The 
harsh law of the Republic became humane. Women, children, 
and even dumb beasts shared its protection. Torture was 
limited. The rights of the accused were better recognized 
From the Empire dates the maxim, “ Better to let the guilty 
escape than to punish the innocent.” “All men by the law of 






















FIRST CENTURIES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 17 


nature are equal” became a law maxim, through the great 
jurist Ulpian. Slavery, he argued, had been created only by 
the lower law, enacted not by nature but by man. Therefore, 
if one man claimed another as his slave, the benefit of any 
possible doubt was to be given to the one so claimed. (It is 
curious to remember that the rule was just the other way in 
nearly all Christian countries through the Middle Ages, and in 
the United States under the Fugitive Slave laws from 1793 to 
the Civil War.) 

This widespread, happy society rested in “the good Roman 
peace” for more than two hundred years,—from the reign 
of Augustus Caesar through that of Marcus Aurelius, or from 
31 b.c. to 192 a.d. No other part of the world so large has 
ever known such unbroken prosperity and such freedom from 
the waste and horror of war for so long a time. Few troops 
were seen within the empire, and “ the distant clash of arms 
[with barbarians] on the Euphrates or the Danube scarcely 
o disturbed the tranquillity of the Mediterranean lands.” 

A few of the emperors at Rome, like Nero and Caligula, 
were weak or wicked; but their follies and vices concerned 
only the nobles of the Capital. The empire as a whole went 
on with little change during their short reigns. To the vast 
body of the people of the Roman world, the crimes of an occa¬ 
sional tyrant were unknown. To them he seemed (like the 
good emperors) merely the symbol of the peace and prosperity 
which enfolded them. 

In language, and somewhat in culture, the West remained 
Latin, and the East, 1 Greek; but trade, travel, and the mild 
and just Roman law made the world one in feeling. Briton, 
African, Asiatic, knew one another only as Romans. An 
Egyptian Greek of the period expressed this world-wide patri¬ 
otism in a noble ode, closing, — 

“Though we tread Rhone’s or Orontes’ 2 shore, 

Yet are we all one nation evermore.” 

1 The Adriatic may be taken as a convenient line of division. 

1 A river of Asia Minor. 


Peace and 
prosperity 
for 200 
years 


Unity of 
the Roman 
world 


18 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The dark 
side 


Decline in 
the third 
century 


Reorgani¬ 
zation by 
Diocletian 


But this picture had a darker side. During some reigns the 
court was rank with hideous debauchery, and at all times the 
rabble of Rome, made up of the off-scourings of all peoples, 
was ignorant and vicious. Some evil customs that shock us 
were part of the age. To avoid cost and trouble, the lower 
classes, with horrible frequency and indifference, exposed their 
infants to die. Satirists, as in our own day, railed at the growth 
of divorce among the rich. Slavery threw its shadow across 
the Roman world. At the gladiatorial sports — so strong is 
fashion — delicate ladies thronged the benches of the amphi¬ 
theater without shrinking at the agonies of the dying. 

The really hopeless feature was the absence of liberty. The 
Roipan world, in this first period, was happy, contented, 
prosperous, well-governed, but not free; and even its virtues 
had something of a servile tone. Moreover, great landlords 
were crowding the small farmers off the land, and that yeo¬ 
man class were giving way to slave or serf tillers of the soil. 

And so the third century began a period of swift decline.. 
For a time despotism had served as a medicine for anarchy 
(p. 11), but now its poison began to show. Weak or vicious 
rulers followed one another in ruinous succession. The throne 
became the sport of the soldiery. Ninety-two years (193-284 
a.d.) saw twenty-seven “barrack emperors'’ set up by the army, 
and all but four w^ere slain in some revolt. 

After this century of misery, the stern soldier, Diocletian 
(284-305), grandson of an Illyrian slave, grasped the scepter 
with a firm hand, restored order, and re-shaped the govern¬ 
ment. For more convenient administration, he divided the 
Roman world into an East and a West, along the dividing 
lines between the old Greek and Latin civilizations; and each * 
half he subdivided again and again into units of several grades 

praefectures, dioceses, provinces. To care for these divisions, 
he then created a series of officers in regular grades, as in an 
army. Each was placed under the immediate direction of the 
one just above him, and the lines all converged from below to 
the emperor. Each official sifted all business that came to him 


DECAY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 


19 


from his subordinates, and sent on to his superior only the more 
important matters. The earlier, loosely organized despotism 
had become a vast centralized despotism, a highly complex 
machine, which fixed responsibility precisely and distributed 
duties in a workable way. 

It is desirable for students to discuss in class more fullv 

i/ 

some of these forms of government of which the text treats. 
“Absolutism” refers to the source of supreme power: in a 
system of absolutism, supreme power is in the hands of one 
person. “Centralization” refers to the kind of administra¬ 
tion. A centralized administration is one carried on by a 
body of officials of many grades, all appointed from above. 
Absolutism and centralization do not ntcessarily go together. 

A government may come frcm the people, and yet rule 
through a centralized administration, as in France to-day. 

It may be absolute, and yet allow much freedom to local 
agencies, as in Russia in past centuries. 

Under a great genius, like Napoleon the First, a cen¬ 
tralized government may for a time produce rapid benefits. 
But the system always decays. It does nothing to educate 
the people politically. Local self-government is often provok- 
ingly slow and faidty, but it is surer in the long run. 

The fourth century showed outward prosperity, but this 
appearance was deceitful. The system of Diocletian warded off 
invasion: but its own weight was crushing. The Empire had 
become “a great tax-gathering and barbarian-fighting machine.” 
It collected taxes in order to fight barbarians. But the time came 
when the people feared the tax collector more than the bar¬ 
barians, as the complex government came to cost more and 
more. About 400 a.d., the Empire began to crumble before 
barbarian attacks less formidable than many that had been 
rebuffed in early centuries. Secret forces had been sapping the 
strength and health of the Roman world. 

1. Population had ceased to advance, and even fell away. 
A series of terrible Asiatic plagues swept off vast numbers; 


Excursus: 

“ Central¬ 
ization ” 
and “ Abso¬ 
lutism ” 


Crushing 
weight of 
the bureau¬ 
cratic 
despotism 


20 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Decline of 
population: 
slavery 


Peaceful 
infusion 
of bar¬ 
barians 


but the causes of permanent decay were within Roman society. 
The main cause, probably, was the widespread slave system. 
The wealthy classes of society do not have large families. Our 
population to-day grows mainly from the working class. But 
in the Roman empire the place of free workingmen was taken 
mainly by slaves. Slaves rarely had families; and if they 
had, the master commonly “exposed” slave children to die, 
since it was easier and cheaper to buy a new slave, from 
among captive barbarians, than to rear one. Besides, the 
competition of slave labor ground into the dust what free 



A German Bodyguard of Marcus Aurelius. — A detail from a column 
commemorating the campaigns of that emperor against untamed Ger¬ 
mans, about 180 a.d. 


labor there was; so that free working people could not afford 
to raise large families, but were driven to the cruel practice 

of exposing their infants. Year after year, “the human har¬ 
vest was bad.” 

2. One measure helped fill up the gaps in population. 
This was the introduction of barbarians from without. The 
Roman army had long been mostly made up of Germans; 
and whole provinces were settled by them, before their kinsmen 
from without, in the fifth century, began in earnest to break 
over the Rhine. Conquered barbarians had been settled, 
hundreds of thousands at a time, in frontier provinces; and 
whole friendly tribes had been admitted into depopulated 










DECAY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 


21 



districts. But all this had a danger of its own: the barrier 
between the empire and its assailants was melting away. 

3. The classes of society were becoming fixed. At the top Approach 
was the emperor. At the bottom were peasantry, artisans, t0 a caste 
and slaves, to produce food and wealth wherewith to pay taxes. 

Between were two aristocracies, — a small imperial nobility 
of great landlords, and an inferior local nobility in each city. 


Remains of the Library of a Roman Villa near i'ivoli. Walls so extensive 
and well preserved are not common, but the foundations of such struc¬ 
tures are scattered widely over Western Europe, and new finds of this 
sort are not uncommon even to-day on the scene of new excavations. 

The landlord nobles had many special privileges. Through 
their influence upon the government and by bribery of officials 
they escaped most of the burden of taxation — which they 
were better able to bear than the unhappy classes that paid. 
Besides his town house, each landlord had one or more costly 
country houses, or villas, with all the comforts of the city 
baths, museums, libraries, mosaic pavements, richly gilded 
ceilings, walls hung with brilliant tapestries, and sideboards 


“ Privi¬ 
leges ” of 
the great 
lords 



22 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The smaller 
nobility 


The old 
middle class 
iisappeared 


The artisans 


beautiful with vases and gold and silver plate. About the 
house spread extensive parklike grounds, with ornamental 
shrubbery and playing fountains and with glorious marble 
statues gleaming through the foliage, and perhaps with fish 
ponds and orchards. 

Commonly a villa was the center of a large farm; and its 
magnificent luxury found a sinister contrast in the squalid 
huts, leaning against the villa walls, in which slept the wretched 
herds of slaves that tilled the soil. Near by, in somewhat better 
quarters, lived the more skilled artisans — carpenters, smiths, 
bakers — while troops of household slaves slept on the floors 
of the large halls or in the open courts of the central mansion. 

The local nobility (curials) were the families of the senate 
class in their respective cities. They, too, had some special 
privileges. They could not be drafted into the army or sub¬ 
jected to bodily punishment. They were compelled, however, 
to undergo great expenses in connection with the offices they 
had to fill. And, in particular, they were made responsible 
for the collection of the imperial taxes in their districts. 

This burden finally became so crushing that many curials 
tiled desperately to evade it, even by sinking into a lower 
class, or by flight to the barbarians. Then, to secure the reve¬ 
nue, law made them an hereditary class. They were forbidden 
to become clergy, soldiers, or lawyers; they were not allowed 
to move from one city to another, or even to travel without 
permission. 

Between these local nobles and the artisan class, there had 
been, in the day of the Early Empire, a much larger middle 
class of small landowners, merchants, bankers, and professional 
men. This middle class had now almost disappeared. Some 
were compelled by law to take up the duties of the vanishing 
curials. More, in the financial ruin of the period, sank into 
the working class. 

The condition of artisans had become desperate. An edict of 
Diocletian’s regarding prices and wages shows that a work¬ 
man received not more than one-tenth the wages of an Ameri- 


DECAY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 


23 




can workman of like grade, while food and clothing cost at 
least one-third as much as in our time. His family rarely knew 
the taste of eggs or fresh meat. And 
now the law forbade him to change 
his trade. 

The peasantry had become serfs. 

That is, they were bound to their 
labor on the soil, and changed 
masters with the land they tilled. 

When the Empire began, free 

„ . . Serfs in Roman Gaul. 

small-tarmers were growing fewer, 

over much of the realm, while great estates, managed by stewards 
and tilled by slaves, were growing more numerous. Grain cul¬ 
ture decreased, and large areas of land ceased to be tilled. To 
help remedy this state of affairs, and to keep up the food 

supply, the emperors in¬ 
troduced a new class of 
hereditary farm laborers. 
After successful wars, they 
gave large numbers of bar¬ 
barian captives to great 
landlords, — thousands in 
a batch, — not as slaves, 
but as serfs. 

The serfs were really 
given not to the landlord, 
but to the land. They 
were not personal property, 
as slaves were. They were 
part of the real estate. They, 
and their children after 
them, were attached to the 
Breadmaking by Serfs in Roman so il, an d cou ld not be sold 

off it. They had some 
rights which slaves did not have. They could contract a legal 
marriage, and each had his own plot of ground, of which he 


Farm laboi 
grows into 
serfdom 























24 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Lack of 
money 


The Empire 
no longer 
able £0 
resist 
outside 
barbarians 


could not be dispossessed so long as he paid to the landlord a 
fixed rent in labor and in produce. 

This growth of serfdom made it still more difficult for the free 
small-farmer to hold his place. That class more and more sank 
into serfs. On the other hand, many slaves rose into serfdom. 

4. Lack of money was one of the great evils. The empire did 
not have sufficient supplies of precious metals for the demands 
of business; and what money there was was steadily drained 
away to India and the distant Orient (p. 15). By the fourth 
century this movement had carried away hundreds of millions 
of dollars of coined money. Even the imperial officers were 



Roman Coins op the Empire. Many such coins have been found in the 

Orient. 


forced to take part of their salaries in produce, — robes, horses, 
grain. Trade began to go back to the primitive form of barter; 
and it became harder and harder to collect taxes. 

In the third and fourth centuries there were no more great 
poets or men of letters. Learning and patriotism both declined. 
Society began to fall into rigid castes, — the serf bound to his 
spot of land, the artisan to his trade, the curial to his office. 
Freedom of movement was lost. Above all, there was dearth of 
money and dearth of men. The Empire had become a shell. 

For five hundred years, outside barbarians had’been tossing 
wildly about the great natural walls of the civilized world. 
Commonly they had shrunk in dread from any conflict with 
the mighty Roman legions, always on sleepless ward at the 





ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIAN CHURCH 25 


weaker gaps — along the Rhine, the Danube, the Euphrates. 
Sometimes, it is true, the barbarians had broken through for 
a moment, but always to be destroyed promptly by some Roman 
Marius or Caesar. In the fifth century they broke in to stay. 

But meanwhile Christianity had come into the world. The 
supreme service of the dying Empire was to foster this new 
force for human progress. 

For three centuries, it is true, the Empire had despised or per¬ 
secuted the sect of Christians ; but still the unity of the Roman 
world made it far easier for the new moral and spiritual teachings 
' to spread than if the world had been broken up into a multitude 
of petty, disconnected, hostile states, with little communication 
and with unintelligible dialects. Then, early in the fourth century 
(313 a.d.), under the Emperor Constantine, Christianity be¬ 
came a tolerated and even a favored religion. Before the close 
of that century it became the state religion; and its victory 
just at this time enabled it to conquer also the barbarians who 
were soon to conquer the Empire, but who were still eager to 
follow where Rome led. 

The church, too, modeled its marvelously efficient govern¬ 
ment upon the territorial divisions and the political organization 
of the Empire. As the first missionaries spread out beyond 
Judea and came to a new province, they naturally went first 
to the chief city there. Thus the capital of the province be¬ 
came the seat of the first church in the district. From this 
mother society, churches spread to the other cities of the 
province, and from each city there sprouted outlying parishes. 

At the head of each parish was a priest, assisted usually by 
deacons and subdeacons to care for the poor. The head of a 
city church was a bishop (overseer), with supervision over the 
rural churches of the neighborhood. The bishop of the mother 
church in the capital city exercised great authority over the other 
bishops of the province. He became known as archbishop or 
metropolitan; and it became customary for him to summon the 
other bishops to a central council. 


But the 
Empire gave 
time for 
Christianity 
to win 
the world 


The church 
adopts muct 
from Rome 
in its gov¬ 
ernment 



26 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Commonly, one of these metropolitans in a given region 
came to have leadership over others, and became known as a 
patriarch. Then the patriarchs of a few great centers were 



Jerusalem To-day : Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives. 

exalted above the others. Finally all the East became divided 
among the four patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, 

and Constantinople, while all the West came under the authority 
of the bishop of Rome. 






















THIRD PERIOD 


MERGING OF ROMAN AND TEUTON, 378-815 A.D. 

I. FOUR CENTURIES OF CONFUSION 

East of the Rhine there had long roamed many “forest 
peoples,” whom the Romans called Germans, or Teutons. These 
barbarians were tall, huge of limb, white-skinned, flaxen-haired, 
with fierce, blue eyes. To the short, dark-skinned races of 
Roman Europe, they seemed tawny giants. 

The tribes nearest the Empire had taken on a little civiliza¬ 
tion, and had begun to form large combinations under the rule 
of kings. The more distant tribes were still savage and un¬ 
organized. In general, they were not far above the level of the 
better North American Indians in our colonial period. 

The usual marks of savagery were found among them. They 
were fierce, quarrelsome, hospitable. Their cold, damp forests 
helped to make them drunkards and gluttonous eaters. They 
were desperate gamblers, too, staking even their liberty on a 
throw of the dice. At the same time, they had all a savage’s 
proud spirit of individual liberty, — a spirit that had been lost 
in the Roman world. 

In contrast to this was another trait. Every great chief 
was surrounded by a band of “ companions, who lived in his 
household, ate at his table, and fought at his side. To them 
the chief gave food, weapons, and plunder. For the safety of 
their “lord” they were ready to give their lives. To survive 
his death, leaving his body to a victorious foe, was life-long 
disgrace. This “personal loyalty ” among the Teutons corre¬ 
sponded to the Roman loyalty to the state. 

The government of the Teutons is described for us by a 
Roman historian, Tacitus. A tribe lived in villages scattered 
in forests. The village and the tribe each had its Assembly and 

27 


The savage 
Teutons 


Government 
of village 
and tribe 


28 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Invasion 
of the 
West 
Goths 


Other 

Teutonic 

invaders 


its hereditary chief. The tribal chief, or king, was surrounded 
by his council of village chiefs. To quote Tacitus : 

“On affairs of smaller moment, the chiefs consult; 
on those of greater importance, the whole community. . . . 
They assemble on stated days, either at the new or full 
moon. When they all think fit, they sit down armed. . . . 
Then the king, or chief, and such others as are conspicuous 
for age, birth, military renown, or eloquence, are heard, and 
gain attention rather from their ability to persuade than 
their authority to command. If a proposal displease, the as¬ 
sembly reject it by an inarticulate murmur. If it prove 
agreeable, they clash their javelins; for the most honorable 
expression of assent among them is the sound of arms.” 

The first Teutonic people to establish itself within the old 
Empire was the West Goths. These barbarians in 378 defeated 
and slew a Roman Emperor at Adrianople, almost under the 
walls of Constantinople, and then roamed and ravaged at 
will for a generation in the Balkan lands. In 410 , they entered 
Italy and sacked Rome, and then moved west into Spain, 
where they found the Vandals — another Teuton race who had 
entered Spain through Gaul from across the Rhine. Driving 
the Vandals into Africa, the West Goths set up in Spain the 
first firm Teutonic kingdom. 

Meanwhile, other Teutons had begun to swarm across the 
Rhine. Finally, after frightful destruction, the East Goths 
established themselves in Italy; the Burgundians, in the valley 
of the Rhone; the Angles and Saxons, in Britain; the Franks, 
in northern Gaul. This “wandering of the peoples” filled the 
fifth century and part of the sixth. 


Slav 

Europe and 

Teutonic 

Europe 


These two terrible centuries brought on the stage also another 
new race, — the Slavs; and the opening of the following century 
brought Mohammedanism (pp. 38 ff.). But of these three forces, 
we are concerned almost alone with the Teutons. Mohammedan¬ 
ism, as we shall see, seized swiftly upon all the old historic 
ground in Asia and Africa; but these countries have had little 



15 Longitude 10 


West 


5 Longitude io 


from 20 Greenwich 25 


The 

GERMANIC KINGDOMS 

established on 

ROMAN SOIL 

Close of Fifth Century 
(Britain in Sixth Century) 

SCALE OF MILES 


oV 

l$y Rheinu 


)l;nuz_. 




JDi^r 


f/M Aquileja 


; s Me i* 


Sirfeidunum 


Danube 




( Vanclals) |4 




i Rome 






Mil 




Cr** 


{Vanclals) 




.■*"S 






Jo («sate «S® > 


■■■ 


■■•wiwvj 


L.L,.P0AT,ES ENR'G, C0.,NSY 


After 507 the Kingdom of the West Goths in Gaul was limited to 


a .small southern strip (Septimania) 























































































THE TEUTONIC INVASIONS 


29 


touch since with our Western civilization. South of the Danube, 
Slavic tribes settled up almost to the walls of Constantinople, 
where the Roman Empire still maintained itself. Southeastern 
Europe became Slavic-Greek, just as Western Europe had be¬ 
come Teutonic-Roman. But, until very recently, Southeastern 
Europe has had little bearing upon the Western World. The 
two halves of Europe fell apart , with the Adriatic for the 
dividing line, — along the old cleavage between Latin and 
Greek civilizations (p. 17). In all the centuries since, human 
progress has come almost wholly from the Western Romano- 
Teutonic Europe — and from its recent offshoots in other 
continents. 


The invasions brought overwhelming destruction upon this 
Western world, — the most complete catastrophe that ever 
befell a great civilized society. Civilization, it is true, had been 
declining before they began; but they tremendously accelerated 
the movement, and prevented any revival of the old culture 
in the West. 

And when the invaders had entered into possession, and 
so ceased to destroy, two new causes of decline appeared: 
(1) The new ruling classes were densely ignorant. They cared 
nothing for the survivals of literature and science. Few of 
them could read, or write even their names. Much of the 
old civilization was allowed to decay because they could not 
understand its use. (2) The language of everyday speech was 
growing away from the literary language in which all the remains 
of the old knowledge were preserved. The language of learn¬ 
ing became “dead.” It was known only to the clergy, and to 
most of them at this period very imperfectly. 

The fifth and sixth centuries brought the Teuton into the 
Roman world; the seventh and eighth centuries fused Roman 
and Teuton elements imo a new “Western Europe.” For 
the whole four hundred years (400-800), Europe remained a 
dreary scene of violence, lawlessness, and ignorance. The old 
Roman schools disappeared, and classical literature seemed to 


The inva¬ 
sions over¬ 
throw 
the old 
civilization 


The “Dark 

Ages,” 

400-800 


30 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Survivals c 
Roman 
civilization 
in towns 
and in the 
church 


The 

“ Greek 
Empire ” 


be extinct. There was no tranquil leisure, and therefore no 
study. There was little security, and therefore little work. 
The Franks and Goths were learning the rudiments of civilized 
life; but the Latins were losing all but the rudiments — and 
they seemed to lose faster than the Teutons gained. 

But after all, the invasions did not uproot civilization. The 
conquests were made by small numbers, and, outside Britain, 
they did not greatly change the character of the population. 
The conquerors settled among ten or fifty times their own 
numbers. At first they were the rulers, and almost the only 
large landowners. But the towns, so far as they survived, re¬ 
mained Roman, and, almost unnoticed by the ruling classes, 
they preserved some parts of the old culture and handicrafts. 
The old population, too, for a long time furnished all the clergy . 
From this class — the sole possessors of the art of writing and 
keeping records — the Teutonic lords had to draw secretaries 
and confidential officers; and by these advisers they were grad¬ 
ually persuaded to adopt many customs of the old civilization. 

Most important of all, the church itself lived on much in the 
old way. Necessarily it suffered somewhat in the general 
degradation of the age; but, on the whole, it protected the 
weak, and stood for peace, industry, and right living. In the 

darkest of those dark centuries 
there were great numbers of 
priests and monks inspired with 
zeal for righteousness and love 
for men. The church, too, had 
its own government, with which 
the new rulers of the land did not 
much interfere. 

The preservation of Roman law we owe mainly to a source 
outside Western Europe. The Roman Empire lived on in part 
of eastern Europe and in Asia, with its capital at Constanti- 
n °ple. Out off fi om Tatin Europe, that Empire now grew more 
and more Greek and Oriental, and after 500 a.d. we usually 
speak of it as “ the Greek Empire.” 



A Silver Coin of Justinian. 










MERGING OF ROMAN AND TEUTON 


31 


In the sixth century, after long decline, the Empire fell for 
a time to a capable ruler, Justinian the Great (527-565). We 
remember him chiefly because he brought about a codification 
of the Roman law. In the course of centuries, that law had 
become an intolerable maze. Now a commission of able lawyers. 




Uftl 






w* eg? 


f/W a** 3r * • * 1 

IK w£- Jg, c A 








m ) • •••iS 






« 

'of ,-V 








m?: . 









Church of St. Sophia, Constantinople, built by Justinian upon the site 
of an earlier church of the same name by Constantine. The whole 
interior is lined with costly, many-colored marbles. This view shows 
only a part of the vast dome, with eighteen of the forty windows which 
run about its circumference of some 340 feet. In 1453 the building 
became a Mohammedan mosque (p. 121). 


put the whole mass into a new form, marvelously compact, 
clear, and orderly. 

Justinian also reconquered Italy for the Empire, and so the 
code was established in that land. Thence, through the church, 
and some centuries later through a new class of lawyers, it 
spread over the West. 

Justinian’s conquest of Italy had another result less happy. 


The 

Justinian 

Code 








32 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Lombards 
and Greeks 
in Italy 


His generals destroyed a promising kingdom of the East Goths 
in Italy. Then (568), immediately after the great emperor’s 
death, a new German people, the savage Lombards, swarmed 
into the peninsula, and soon conquered much of it. Their chief 
kingdom was in the Po valley, which we still call Lombardy; 
but various Lombard “ dukedoms” were scattered also in other 
parts. The Empire kept (1) the “Exarchate of Ravenna” on 

the Adriatic; (2) Rome, 
with a little territory about 
it; and (3) the extreme 
south. 

Thus Italy, the middle 
land for which Roman arid 
Teuton had struggled for 
centuries, teas at last divided 
between them, and shattered 
into f ragments in the process. 
No other country suffered 
so terribly in the centuries 
of invasion as this lovely 
peninsula which had so 
long been mistress of the 
world. 



Religious Preliminary to a Judicial 
Combat. Each party is making oath 
to the justice of his cause. — From 
a fifteenth century manuscript. 


Teutonic 

Law 


When the barbarians came into the Empire, their law was 
only unwritten custom. Much of it remained so, especially 
in Biitain. But, under Roman influence, the conquerors soon 
put parts of their law into written codes. Two common features 
of these codes throw interesting sidelights on the times. 

1. Offenses were atoned for by money-payments, varying from 
a small amount for cutting off the joint of a finger, to the wergeld 
(man-money), or payment for taking a man’s life. 

2. When a man wished to prove himself innocent, or another 
man guilty, he did not try to bring evidence, as we do. Proof 
consisted in an appeal to God to show the right. 

Thus in the trial by compurgation, the accuser and accused 













































MERGING OF ROMAN AND TEUTON 


33 


swore solemnly to their statements, and each was backed by 
“compurgators,” — not witnesses, but persons who swore they 
believed their man was telling the truth. To swear falsely 
was to invite the divine vengeance, as in the boyish survival, — 
“Cross my heart and hope to die.” 

In trial by ordeal, the accused tried to clear himself by being 
thrown bound into water. Or he plunged his arm into boiling 
water, or carried red-hot 
iron a certain distance, or 
walked over burning plow¬ 
shares ; and if his flesh was 
uninjured, when examined 
some days later, he was de¬ 
clared innocent. All these 
ordeals were under the 
charge of the clergy, and 
were preceded by sacred ex¬ 
ercises. Such tests could 
be made, too, by deputy: 
hence our phrase to “go 
through fire and water” 
for a friend. 

Among the fighting class, 
the favorite trial came to 
be the trial by combat, — a judicial duel in which God was ex¬ 
pected to “show the right.” 

The Teutons introduced once more a system of growing 
law. Codification preserved the Roman law, but crystal¬ 
lized it. Teutonic law, despite its codes, remained for a 
long time crude and unsystematic; but it contained possi¬ 
bilities of further growth. The importance of this fact 
has been felt mainly in the English “Common Law,” the 
basis of our American legal system. 

The conquest modified the political institutions of the con¬ 
querors in many ways. Three changes call for attention. 



Trial by 
ordeal 











34 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The 

conquest 

modifies 

Teutonic 

institutions 


Life in 
Western 
Europe, 
700 A.D. 


1. The Teutonic Icings became more absolute. At first they 
were little more than especially honored military chiefs, at the 
head of rude democracies. In the conquests, they secured 
large shares of confiscated land, so that they could reward then 
supporters and build up a strong personal following. Their 
authority grew by custom, since, in the confusion of the times, 
all sorts of matters were necessarily left to their decision. 
Moreover, the Roman idea of absolute power in the head of 
the state had its influence. With all its excellences, the 
Roman law was imbued with the principle of despotism. A 
favorite maxim was, — “ What the prince wills has the force 
of law.” 

2. A new nobility of service appeared. The king rewarded his 
most faithful and trusted followers with grants of lands, and 
made them rulers (counts and dukes) over large districts. 

3. The assemblies of freemen decreased in importance. They 
survived in England as occasional “Folkmoots,” and in the 
Frankish kingdom as “ Mayfields ”; but they shrank into 
gatherings of nobles and officials: if others came, it was only 
to hear the king’s will. 

At the same time, while these assemblies of the whole 
nation died out or lost their democratic elements, they 
kept much of their old character for various local units, as 
in the counties of the Teutonic kingdoms in England. 
Thus the Teutons did carry into the Roman world a new 
chance for democracy. It is not correct to say that they 
gave us representative government; but they did give the 
worla another chance to develop it. The earlier peoples had 
lost their chances; but in England, later, representative 
institutions grew out of these local assemblies. 

Everyday life in the seventh century was harsh and mean. 
The Teutonic conquerors disliked the close streets of a Roman 
town; but the villa, the residence of a Roman country gentle¬ 
man, was the Roman institution which they could most nearly 
appreciate. The new Teutonic kings lived not in town palaces. 


MERGING OF ROMAN AND TEUTON 


35 


but on extensive farmsteads in the midst of forests. The new 
nobility, too, and other important men, were great landlords 
and lived in the open country in rude but spacious dwellings 
of wood. 

Population had shrunken terribly, even since the worst times 
of the Roman Empire. In the north, most towns had been 
destroyed. If they were rebuilt at all, it w;as upon a smaller 
scale, and from 
wood. The occu¬ 
pations of town- 
dwellers had 
mostly vanished. 

The town, sur¬ 
rounded by a rude 
palisade, was val¬ 
ued chiefly for a 
refuge, and for its 

convenient near¬ 
ness to the church Seventh Century Villa (in wood) in Northern 
. Gaul. A “restoration,” from Parmentier. 

or cathedral m its 

center. In the south, it is true, the old cities lived on, with a 
considerable degree of the old Roman city life. 

Everywhere, the great majority of the people were the poor 
folk who tilled the land for neighboring masters. Most of these 
toilers lived in mud hovels, or in cabins of rough boards, with¬ 
out floors and with roofs covered with reeds or straw. At the 
best, little more of their produce remained to them than barely 
enough to support life; and they were constantly subject to 
the arbitrary will of masters. At frequent intervals, too, they 
suffered terribly from pestilence and famine. 

This picture of ordinary seventh-century life helps us to 
understand the monastic life which became popular in that day. 
In the old East, holiness was believed to be related to withdrawal 
from the world, to contempt for human pleasures, and to dis¬ 
regard for natural instincts, even love for mother, wife, and 



Population 

shrunken 


Life of the 
poor 


Monasti- 

cism 









36 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 



child. This unnatural, ascetic tendency invaded Eastern 
Christianity, and, in the Egyptian and Syrian deserts, there 
arose a class of tens of thousands of Christian hermits, who 
strove each to save his own soul by tormenting his body. In 
some cases these fugitives from society united into small 

societies with common 


rules of life. 

In the latter part of the 
fourth century this idea of 
religious communities was 
transplanted to the West 
and the long anarchy fol¬ 
lowing the invasions made 
such a life peculiarly in¬ 
viting. European monas- 
ticism, however, differed 
widely from its model in 
the East. The monks of 
the West, within their 
quiet walls, wisely sought 
escape from temptation, 
not in idleness, but in 
active and incessant work. 
Their motto was, “ To 

work is to pray.” In 
The Abbey 1 of Citeaux. — From a min- , 7 , 7 , , 7 

iature in a twelfth century manuscript. seve ^ih century, the 

majority of cultured and 
refined men a?id women in Western Europe lived within mo¬ 
nastic walls. Monks did not go out into the world to save 
it; but their doors were open to all who came for help. For 
centuries of violence and brutality, the thousands of monas¬ 
teries that dotted Western Europe were the only almshouses, 
inns, asylums, hospitals, and schools, and the sole refuge of 
learning. 


1 A large monastery was an abbey, and its elected head was an abbot — from 
the Syrian word abba, “ father.’’ 
















































EARLY EMPIRE OF THE FRANKS 


37 


II. FRANKS, MOHAMMEDANS, AND POPES 

During the two centuries of fusion (p. 29), two great 
organizing powers grew up in Western Europe — the Frankish 
state and the Papacy; and one great danger appeared — Mo¬ 
hammedanism. 

The growth of the Frankish state was due mainly to Clovis , 
a ferocious and treacherous Teutonic savage of shrewd intellect. 
In 481, Clovis became king 
of one of the several little 
tribes of Franks on the 
lower Rhine. Fifty years 
later, thanks to a long- 
continued policy of war, 
assassination, and perfidy, 
his sons ruled an empire 
that was beyond compari¬ 
son the greatest power in 
Europe, comprising nearly 
all modern France, the 
Netherlands, and much of 
western Germany. 

This new Frankish empire remained for three centuries not 
only the greatest power in Western Europe hut practically the only 
power. The Gothic state in Spain was in decay. Italy was in 
fragments. England (Britain) remained a medley of small 
warring states (p. 56). Germany, east of the Frankish empire, 
held only savage and unorganized tribes. 

For two of these centuries the family of Clovis kept the 
throne, — a story of greed, treachery, and murder, and, toward 
the end, of dismal, swinish indolence. The last of these kings 
were mere phantom rulers, known as “ Do-nothings ,’’ and all 
real power was held by a mayor of the palace. The Empire of 
the Franks seemed about to dissolve in anarchy. Austrasia 
(northeastern France and the lower Rhine region) was the most 
Frank in blood, and was engaged in war with Neustria (north- 



Monks Busy in Field Work. — From 
Lacroix, after a thirteenth century 
manuscript. 


Rise of 
the Franks 


The “ Do- 
nothing ” 
kings 




















38 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The 

Frankish 
state re¬ 
united by 
Martel 


Arabia 

before 

Mohammed 


western France), which had more of the old Roman character, 
and was ambitious for supremacy. German Bavaria and 
Roman Aquitaine attempted complete independence under native 
dukes. But about the year 700 a great mayor, Charles, known 
as Martel (“the Hammer”), by crushing blows right and left 
began to restore union and order. 


And none too soon. For the Mohammedans now attacked 
Europe. Except for Martel’s long pounding, there would 
have been no Christian power able to withstand their onset — 



A Repast in the Hall of a Frankish Noble. — After a tenth century 

manuscript. 


and Englishmen and Americans to-day might be readers of 
the Mohammedan Koran instead of the Christian Bible. 

A century after Clovis built up the empire of the Franks, a 
better man, out of less promising material, built a mighty 
power in Arabia. Until that time, Arabia had had little to do 
with human progress. It was mainly desert, with occasional 
oases, and with strips of tillable land near the Red Sea. In this 
coast district there were a few small cities. Elsewhere the 
Arabs were wandering shepherds, — poor and ignorant, dwelling 
in black camel’s-hair tents, living from their sheep and by 
robbing their neighbors, and worshiping sticks and stones. 
The inspiring force that was to lift them to a higher life, and fuse 












“SS3^:j> vy 


mnMj 




PW' 



































EARLY MOHAMMEDANISM 


39 


them into a world-conquering nation, was the fiery enthusiasm 
of Mohammed. 

Mohammed was born at Mecca, the largest city of Arabia, 
about 570. He never learned to read; but his speech was 
ready and forceful, and his manner pleasing and stately. As 
a youth, he was modest, serious, and truthful, — so that as a 
hired camel-driver, he earned the surname “the Faithful.” 
He had always been given to occasional periods of religious 
enthusiasm and ecstasy, watching and praying alone in the 
desert for days at a time, as indeed many Arabs did. In such 
a lonely vigil, when he was a respected merchant forty years 
old, God appeared to him (he said) in a wondrous vision, re¬ 
vealing to him a higher religion and ordering him to preach it 
to his countrymen. Mohammed really drew the best features 
of his new religion from Jewish and Christian teachings, with 
which he had become somewhat acquainted in his travels as a 
merchant. The two central requirements were faith and obe¬ 
dience. A “true believer” must accept only the one God, Allah, 
and must offer complete submission (Islam) to his will. 

The Koran, 1 the “sacred book” made up of Mohammed’s 
teachings, taught a higher morality than the Arabs had known, 

■— not so very unlike that of the Ten Commandments; but it 
accepted also certain evil customs of the time, such as slavery 
and polygamy, and it attracted converts by its sensuous ap¬ 
peals to future pleasures or pains. At the “Last Day,” all 
souls would be gathered to judgment. Then all sinful Moham¬ 
medans, together with all “Unbelievers,” would be cast into 
an everlasting hell of scalding water covered with thick clouds 
of smoke. True believers, on the other hand, were to enter the 
joys of an eternal Paradise, to recline, in the midst of lovely 
gardens, on couches of gold and jewels, where they would be 
served constantly by beautiful maidens (“houris”) with de¬ 
licious foods and wines. 

For twelve years the new faith grew slowly. A few friends 
accepted Mohammed at once as a prophet; but the bulk of 
1 See extracts in Ogg’s Source Book, No. 13 


Moham¬ 

med, 

570-632 


Moral 

teachings 

of 

Mohammed 


The 
Hegira 
622 AD 


40 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


his fellow townsfolk jeered at the claim, and when he con¬ 
tinued to order them to put away their stone idols, they drove 
him from Mecca. This flight is “the Hegira” (622 a.d.). 



The Mosque of El Azhar at Cairo. — This view shows only the minarets 

and dome of the roof. 


Mohammed 
makes 
converts 
by the 
sword 


But Mohammed converted the tribes of the desert, and then 
took up the sword. His fierce warriors proved themselves 
almost irresistible, conquering many a time against overwhelm¬ 
ing odds. They felt sure that to every man there was an ap- 











EUROPE SAVED PROM MOHAMMEDANISM 41 


pointed time of death, which he could neither delay nor hasten, 
and they rejoiced in death in battle as the surest admission to 
the joys of Paradise. “The sword,” said Mohammed, “is the 
key of heaven. Whoso falls in battle, all his sins are forgiven; 
at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent as 
vermilion and odoriferous as musk.” Before his death, ten 
years after the Hegira, Mohammed was master of all Arabia. 
Eighty years later, his followers stood victorious upon the 
Oxus, the Indus, the Black Sea, the Atlantic, — rulers of a 
realm more extensive than that of Rome at its height. Within 
the span of one human life, the Mohammedans had won all 
the old Asiatic empire of Alexander the Great, and all North 
Africa besides; and drawing together the sweeping horns of 
their mighty crescent, they were already trying to enter Europe 
from both east and west across the narrow straits of the Helles¬ 
pont and Gibraltar. 

The most formidable attacks wore themselves away (672 and 
717) about the walls of “the City of Constantine,” defended 
by its new “Greek fire”; but in 711 the Arabs did enter Spain 
and were soon masters cf that peninsula, except for remote 
mountain fastnesses. Then, pouring across the Pyrenees, the 
Mohammedan flood spread over Gaul, even to the Loire. 
Now, indeed, it “seemed that the crescent was about to round 
to the full.” But the danger completed the reunion of the Frankish 
state (p. 38). 

The duke of Aquitaine, long in revolt against Frankish rule, 
fled to the camp of Charles Martel for aid against the 
Mohammedan; and, in 732, in the plains near Tours , the 
“Hammer of the Franks” with his close array of mailed Aus- 
trasian infantry met the Arab host. From dawn to dark, on a 
Saturday in October, the gallant, turbaned horsemen of the 
Saracens hurled themselves in vain against the Franks’ stern 
wall of iron. At night the surviving Arabs stole silently from 
their camp and fled back behind the shelter of the Pyrenees. 

This Battle of Tours, just one hundred years after Moham¬ 
med’s death, is the high-water mark of the Saracen invasion. 


Rapid 
growth of 
the faith 


The 

Saracens 

attack 

Europe 


Battle of 
Tours, 
732 A.D. 


42 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Claims of 
the Roman 
papacy to 
headship 


Rome's 
advantages 
in the 
Western 
church 


A few years later, the Mohammedan world, like Christendom, 
split into rival empires. The Caliph 1 of the East built, for 
his capital, the wonderful city of Bagdad on the Tigris. The 
Caliphate of the West fixed its capital at Cordova in Spain. 
The two Caliphates were more or less hostile to each other, and 
the critical danger to Western civilization for the time passed 
away. The repulses at Constantinople and at Tours rank with 
Marathon and Salamis, in the long struggle between Asia and 
Europe. 

The Frankish state had saved Europe from Africa. Next 
it allied to itself the papacy. We must now trace the rise of 
that power. 

In the fourth century, we have seen (p. 26), the leadership 
of the Christian world was divided among the great bishops 
of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. 
Very early the last of these put forth a vigorous claim — as 
spiritual successor to St. Peter, alleged founder of the church 
at Rome to supremacy over all the Christian church. 

Rome had advantages that helped to make good this claim. 

(1) Men thought of Rome naturally as the world-capital. 

(2) The Latin half of the Empire had no other church founded 
by an Apostle, nor did it contain any other great city: Rome’s 
rivals were all east of the Adriatic. (3) The decline of the 
Roman Empire in the West, after the barbarian invasions, 
left the pope less liable to interference from the imperial gov¬ 
ernment than the Eastern bishops were. (4) A long line of 
remarkable popes, by their wise statesmanship and their mis¬ 
sionary zeal, confirmed the position of Rome as head of the 
Western churches. 

The name pope ( papa”) was at first only a term of 
affectionate respect (“father”). It did not become an 
official term until 1085. 

Even in the West, however, until about 700 a.d., most men 
looked upon the bishop of Rome only as one among five great 
1 Caliph (“successor”) became the title of the successors of Mohammed 


RISE OF THE PAPACY 43 

patriarchs, though the most loved and trusted one. But the 
eighth century eliminated the other four 'patriarchs, so far as 
It estern Christendom was concerned. In quick succession, 
Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch fell to the Saracens; and, 
soon afterward, remaining Christendom split into .rival Latin 
and Greek churches, grouped respectively around Rome and 
Constantinople. 



The Church of St. John Lateran at Rome, on, the site of the first papal 
church. The popes used the adjoining Lateran palace as their official 
residence until 1377. 


This “Great Schism” followed the ancient lines of partition 
between the Latin and Greek cultures; but the occasion for actual 
separation was a dispute over the use of images (the “icono¬ 
clast,” or image-breaking question). An influential party in 
the Greek Empire desired to abolish the use of images, which, 
they felt, the ignorant were apt to degrade from symbols into 
idols. A great reforming emperor, Leo the Isaurian, put him¬ 
self at the head of the movement, with all his despotic power. 


The “ Great 
Schism ” 
leaves 
Rome 
mistress 
in the 
Western 
church 













44 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The pope 
becomes 
a temporal 
prince 


and ordered all images removed from the churches. The West 
believed in their use as valuable aids to worship; and the 
pope forbade obedience to the order of the emperor. The 
result was the separation of Christendom into two halves, 
never since united. 

Thus, Rome was left the unquestioned head of the Latin 
church, the spiritual lord of Western Europe. At the same 



|S|g 



W 


B 1 




Cloisters of St. John Lateran. 


time, too, the pope was growing into a temporal 1 sovereign over a 
small state in Italy. In the break-up of that peninsula (p. 32), 
the imperial governor kept his capital at Ravenna, safe amid 
the marshes of the Adriatic coast. Thus he was soon cut off, 
by Lombard states, from Rome, which with neighboring terri¬ 
tory still belonged to the Empire. Bishops always held 
considerable civil authority. This new condition left the 

1 Temporal , in this sense, is used to apply to matters of this world, in 
contrast to the spiritual matters of the world eternal. 






UNION OF FRANKS AND POPES 


45 


bishop of Rome the only lieutenant of the Empire in his 
isolated district; and the difficulty of communication with 
( onstantinople (and the weakness of the emperors) made him 
in practice an independent ruler. After the split between 
Greek and Latin churches, this independence was openly 
avowed. 

At once, however, the new papal state was threatened with 
conquest by the neighboring Lombards, who already had seized 
the Exarchate of Ravenna. The popes appealed to the Franks 
for aid against Lombard attack. The Frankish mayors needed 
papal sanction for their own plans just then; and so the two or- 
(janizing forces of Western Europe joined hands. 

The Frankish mayor now was Pippin the Short, son of Charles 
Martel. This ruler felt that he bore the burdens of kingship, 
and he wished to take to himself also its name and dignity. 
Such a step needed powerful sanction. So, in 750, Pippin sent 
an embassy to the pope to ask whether this was “a good 
state of things in regard to the kings of the Franks.” The 
pope replied, “It seems better that he who has the power 
should be king rather than he who is falsely called so.” 
Thereupon Pippin shut up the last shadow-king of the house 
of Clovis in a monastery, and himself assumed the crown. 

A little later, Pope Stephen visited the Frankish court and 
solemnly consecrated Pippin king. All earlier Teutonic kings 
had held their kingship by will of their people; but Stephen 
anointed Pippin, as the old Hebrew prophets did the Hebrew 
kings. This began for European monarchs their “sacred” 
character as “the Lord’s anointed.” On his part, Pippin 
made Lombardy a tributary state and gave to the pope that 
territory which the Lombard king had recently seized from 
Ravenna. This “Donation of Pippin” created the modem 
principality of “the Papal states” — to last until 1870. 


Popes and 
Lombards 


Alliance of 
Franks and 
papacy 



FOURTH PERIOD 


CHARLEMAGNE’S EMPIRE 


Charle¬ 

magne, 

768-814 


“ A patch of light in a vast gloom' 


In 768 Pippin, King of the Franks, was succeeded by his 
son Karl, soon to win justly the title of the Great — the greatest 
medieval man. Karl the Great was known in his own day, 
in the Latin form of his name, as Carolus Magnus, and is best 

known to us by the French form Charle¬ 
magne. 

Charlemagne was a statesman rather 
than a fighter; but he found his realm still 
threatened by barbarian Germans on the 
east and by Mohammedan Moors on the 
south, and his long reign of a half century 
was filled with ceaseless border wars. He 
thrust back the Saracens to the Ebro, re¬ 
deeming a strip of Spain; and, in a long 
pounding of thirty years, he subdued the 
heathen Saxons amid the marshes and 
trackless wilderness between the lower 
Rhine and the Elbe. All this district, so 
long a peril to the civilized world, was 
colonized by Frankish pioneers and planted 
with Christian churches. In such bloody 



Seal of Charle¬ 
magne. (This is the 
nearest approach we 
have to a likeness of 
Charlemagne. The 
so-called “pictures” 
of Charlemagne in 
many books are 
purely imaginative, 
by artists of later 
centuries.) 


and violent ways Charlemagne laid the foundation for modern 
Germany. 

Other foes engaged energy the great king would rather 
have given to reconstruction. The vassal Lombard king 
attacked the pope. After fruitless expostulation, Charlemagne 
marched into Italy, confirmed Pippin’s “Donation,” and at 

46 







CHARLEMAGNE’S EMPIRE 


47 


Pavia placed the Iron Crown of Lombardy upon his own head, 
as King of Italy. And when restless German Bavaria once 
more rebelled (p. 38), that district was at last thoroughly and 
lastingly subdued. 

Thus Visigoth in northern Spain, Burgund in south Gaul, 
Lombard in Italy, and the more newly “civilized” Bavarian 
and Saxon in Germany, along with the dominant Franks —- 
all the surviving Teutonic peoples except the 
Norsemen in the Scandinavian lands and the 
Angles and Saxons in Britain — were fused 
in one Christian Romano-Teutonic state. Be¬ 
yond this “Western Europe,” to the east, 
stretched away savage and heathen Avars 
and Slavs, still hurling themselves from time 
to time against the barriers of the civilized 
world. Charlemagne made no attempt to 
embody these inharmonious elements in his 
realm; but, toward the close, he did attack 
barbarism in these last European strong¬ 
holds, reducing the first line of peoples beyond the Elbe and 
the Danube into tributary states to serve as buffers against their 
untamed brethren farther east. 

But no mere “King of the Franks” could hold in lasting alle¬ 
giance the minds of Visigoth, Lombard, Bavarian, and Saxon, 
and of the old Roman populations among whom they dwelt. 
And so Charlemagne now strengthened his authority over his em¬ 
pire 1 by reviving in the West the dignity and magic name of the 
Roman Empire, ruling at once from the old world-capital, Rome 
on the Latin Tiber, and from his new capital, the German 
Aachen on the Rhine. 

There was already a “Roman Emperor” at Constantinople, 
whose authority, in theory, extended over all Christendom; 



Servingman with 
Lamp : time of 
Charlemagne. 


“ Buffer ” 
states on 
the East 


“ Emperor 
of the 
Romans,” 
8 oo A.D. 


1 An “empire,” strictly speaking, is a political state containing many sub- . 
states. A “state,” in this sense, does not mean such a unit as Massachusetts 
or New York, but rather England or the United States. That is, it means a 
people living in a definite territory, under one government. 








48 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The two 
Empires 


Poverty 
and misery 
of Europe, 
800 AD. 


but just at this time, Irene, the empress-mother, put out the 
eyes of her son, Constantine VI, and seized the imperial power. 
To most minds, East and West, it seemed monstrous that a 
wicked woman should pretend to the scepter of the world; and, 
on Christmas Day, 800 a.d., as Charlemagne at Rome knelt in 
prayer at the altar, Pope Leo III placed upon his head a gold 
crown, saluting him “ Charles Augustus, Emperor of the 
Romans.” This deed was at once ratified by the enthusiastic 
acclaim of the multitude without. 

In theory, Rome had chosen a successor to Constantine VI, 
just deposed at Constantinople. In actual fact, however, the 
deed of Leo and Charlemagne divided the Christian world into two 
rival empires, each calling itself the Roman Empire. After a 
time men had to recognize this fact, — as they had to recognize 
that there were two branches of the Christian church; but 
to the men of the West, their Empire, like their church, remained 
the only legitimate one. Two things must be borne in mind. 

1. Neither Empire was really Roman. As the Eastern grew 
more and more Oriental, the Western grew more and more 
Teutonic. Roman ideas, so far as they remained at all, were 
worked out by rulers of Teutonic blood. 

2. The new Empire arose out of a union of the papacy and the 
Frankish power. In later times the union was expressed in 
the name, The Holy Roman Empire. The Empire had its 
spiritual as well as its temporal head. The limits of authority 
between the two heads were not well defined, and dissensions 
were afterward to arise between them. 

The glory and prosperity of the old Empire had not been 
restored with its name. To accomplish that was to be the work 
of centuries more. In 800, the West was still ignorant and 
wretched. There was much barbarism in the most civilized 
society. Roads had fallen to ruin, and murderous brigands 
infested those that remained. Money was little known, and 
trade hardly existed. Almost the only industry was the primi¬ 
tive agriculture of the serfs. Even Charlemagne could raise 



50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 


















































































, 


















CHARLEMAGNE’S EMPIRE 


49 


no taxes. He exacted “service in person” in war and 
peace; and the other support of his court came mainly from 
the produce of the royal farms scattered through the kingdom. 
Partly to make sure of this revenue in the cheapest way, and 
more to attend to the wants of his vast realms, Charlemagne 
and his court were always on the move. No commercial 
traveler of to-day travels more faithfully, or dreams of en¬ 
countering such hard¬ 
ship on the road. 

To keep in closer 
touch with popular 
feeling in all parts of 
the kingdom, Charle¬ 
magne made use of the 
old Teutonic assem¬ 
blies in fall and spring. 

All freemen could at¬ 
tend. Sometimes, es¬ 
pecially when war was to be decided upon, this “Mayfield” 
gathering comprised the bulk of the men of the Frankish nation. 
At other times it was made up only of the great nobles and 
churchmen (p. 34). 

To these assemblies were read the capitularies, or collec¬ 
tions of laws decreed by the king; but the assembly was not 
itself a legislature. Law-making was in the hands of the king. 
At the most, the assemblies could only bring to bear upon him 
mildly the force of public opinion. A modern French historian 
(Coulanges) pictures a Mayfield thus: 

“An immense multitude is gathered in a plain, under tents. It is 
divided into separate groups. The chiefs of these groups assemble about 
the king, to deliberate with him. Then each of them tells his own group 
what has been decided, perhaps consults them, but at any rate obtains 
their consent as easily as the king had obtained his; for these men are 
dependent on him, just as he is on the king. . . . The king’s will de¬ 
cided everything; the nobles only advised.” 

Charlemagne made brave attempts also to revive learning. 
He never learned to write, but he spoke and read Latin, as well 



Silver Coin of Charlemagne. The obverse 
side shows the Latin form of his name. Note 
the rudeness of the engraving compared with 
that of Justinian’s coin on page 30. 


The “May- 
fields ” of 
the Franks 


50 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Attempts 
to revive 
learning 


The world 
of 800 A.D. 


as his native German, and he understood some Greek. For 
his age he was an educated man; and he wished earnestly to 
make more learning possible for others. The difficulties were 
greater even than in Russia to-day. Nearly every noble, and 
many of the clergy, were densely ignorant. The only tools to 
work with were poor. There seemed no place to begin. 

Still much was done. For teachers Charlemagne sought out 
learned men in South Italy, where Roman civilization best 
survived, and he opened schools in monasteries and at bishops’ 
seats for the instruction of all children who could come to them 
— even the children of serfs. Some of these schools, as at 
Tours and Orleans, lived on through the Middle Ages. 1 

In the early part of the eighth century there were four great 
forces contending for Western Europe, — the Greek Empire, 
the Saracens, the Franks, and the papacy. By the year 800, 
Charles Martel and Charles the Great had excluded the first 
two and had fused the other two into the revived Roman Em¬ 
pire. For centuries more, this Roman Empire was to be one 
of the most important forces in Europe. Barbarism and 
anarchy were again to break in, after the death of the great 
Charles; but the imperial idea, to which he had given new life, 
was to be for ages the inspiration of the best minds as they 
strove against anarchy in behalf of order and progress. 

Charlemagne himself towers above all other men from the fifth 
century to the fifteenth—easily the greatest figure of a thousand 
years. He stands for five mighty movements. He widened 
the area of civilization, created one great Romano-Teutonic 
state, revived the Roman Empire in the West for the out¬ 
ward form of this state, reorganized church and society, and 
began a revival of learning. He wrought wisely to combine 
the best elements of Roman and of Teutonic society into 
•a new civilization. In his Empire were fused the various 

1 The term “ Middle Ages ” is used for the centuries from 400 to 1500, or 
from the Teutonic invasions to the Discovery of America. These centuries 
cover that Medieval’ period which intervenes between the distinctly 
Ancient and the distinctly Modern period, 


51 


THE WORLD OE 800 A.D. 

streams of influence which the Ancient IT orld contributed to our 
Modern World. 

The world was divided among four great powers — two rival 
Christian Homan Empires and two rival Mohammedan 
Caliphates. Tor centuries the Western Empire remained the 
least polished, least wealthy, least civilized of the four. And 
yet this rude state, with its fringes in the Teutonic lands of 
England and Scandinavia, was the only one of the four great 



powers that was to stand for further progress, — the only one 
with which later history is much concerned. 

The scene of history had shifted to the West once more, and 
this time it had shrunken in size. Some Teutonic districts 
outside the old Roman world had been added; but vast areas 
of the Roman territory itself had been abandoned. The 
Euphrates, the Nile, the Eastern Mediterranean, all Asia with 
Eastern Europe to the Adriatic, and Africa with Western 
Europe to the Pyrenees, were gone. The Mediterranean, the 


Scene of 
“ history ” 
shifted to 
“ Western 
Europe ” 











52 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Western 
Europe’s 
heritage 
from the 
ages 


center of the old Roman world, had become an ill-defended 
moat between Christian Europe and Mohammedan Africa; 
and its ancient place as the great highway of civilization was 
taken over, as well as might be, by the Rhine and the North 
Sea. 

We can now sum up the inheritance with which “Western 
Europe” began. 

Through Rome the Western peoples were the heirs of Greek 
mind and Oriental hand, including most of those mechanical 
arts which had been built up in dim centuries by Egyptian, 
Babylonian, and Phoenician; and though much of this inherit¬ 
ance, both intellectual and material, was forgotten or neglected 
for hundreds of years, most of it was finally to be recovered. 
Rome also passed on Christianity and its church organization. 

Rome herself had contributed (1) a universal language, which 
was to serve as a common medium of learning and intercourse 
for all the peoples of Western Europe; (2) Roman law; (3) mu¬ 
nicipal institutions, in southern Europe; (4) the imperial idea 

the conception of one, lasting, universal, supreme authority, 
to which the world owed obedience. 

The fresh blood of the Teutons reinvigorated the old races, 
and so provided the men who for centuries were to do the 
world s work. The Teutons contributed, too, certain definite 
ideas and institutions, — (1) a new sense of personal inde¬ 
pendence ; (2) a bond of personal loyalty between chieftain 
and follower, in contrast with the old Roman loyalty to the 
state; (3) a new chance for democracy, especially in the popular 
assemblies of different grades in England. 

Out of Roman and Teutonic elements there had already de¬ 
veloped a new serf organization of labor; a new nobility; and 
a new Romano-Teutonic kingship — and now there was to grow 
out of them a new feudalism (below). 


The use of the words German and Teuton in the above treat¬ 
ment calls foi a word of caution. They are the only proper 
words to use, but they may easily give rise to misunderstanding. 


THE WORLD OF 800 A.D. 


53 


The mingling of Teutonic and Roman elements in our civiliza¬ 
tion took place not in Germany but in the lands we call Eng¬ 
land, France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain. The people who 
brought the Teutonic contributions into those lands were not 
the ancestors of the modern Germans — any more than were 
other Teutons, like the Danes and Swedes, who never entered 
Germany: they were, in part, the ancestors of English, French, 
Spanish, and Italian peoples. They left Germany fourteen 
hundred years ago; and the civilization which grew up in those 
Western lands, after these migrations into them, was the civiliza¬ 
tion of a new “ Western Europe.” Then, some three or four 
centuries later, as we have seen, Christianity and armed con¬ 
quest began, in a measure, to carry this new civilization east 
from these lands into the forests of savage and heathen 
Germany. 


Caution 
as to the 
terms 
“ Teuton * 
and 

“ German 


The 

division of 
Verdun, 
843 A.D. 


Beginnings 
of France 
and Ger¬ 
many 



FIFTH PERIOD 

THE FEUDAL AGE, 800-1300 

I. THE NEW BARBARIAN ATTACK 

“ From the fury of the Northmen, 0 Lord, deliver usd' — Prayer 
in Church Service of Tenth Century 

Charlemagne died in 814, and his empire did not long outlive 
him. His brilliant attempt to bring Western Europe into order 
and union was followed by a dismal period of reaction and 
turmoil, while his ignoble descendants sought only to see who 
could grab the largest slices of the realm. The most impor¬ 
tant of these selfish contests closed in 8^3 with the Treaty of 
Verdun. 

This treaty begins the map of modern Europe. Lothair, 
Charlemagne’s eldest grandson, held the title Emperor, and 
so he was now given North Italy and a narrow strip of land 
from Italy to the North Sea — that he might keep the two 
imperial capitals, Rome and Aachen (p. 47). The rest of the 
Empire, lying east and west of this middle strip, was broken 
into two kingdoms for Lothair’s two brothers. 

The eastern kingdom was purely German. In the western, 
the Teutonic rulers were being absorbed rapidly into the older 
Roman and Gallic populations, to grow into France. Lothair’s 

54 






















































































NEW BARBARIAN INVASIONS AFTER 800 55 



unwieldy “Middle Europe” proved the weakest of the three. 
Italy fell away at once. Then the northern portion, part 
French, part German, crumbled into “little states” that con¬ 
fused the map of Europe for centuries. Most of them were 
finally absorbed by their more powerful neighbors on either 
side. Four survive as Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, and 
Switzerland. 

For a century after Verdun, political history remained a 
bloody tangle of treacherous family quarrels, while the descend¬ 
ants of the Hammer and the Great were known as the Bald, 
the Simple, the Fat, the 
Lazy. And now distracted 
Europe was imperiled by 
a new danger from with¬ 
out. Once more barbarian 
invasions threatened the 
civilized world. On the 
east, hordes of wild Slavs 
and of wilder Hungarians 
broke across the frontiers, 
ravaged Germany, and penetrated sometimes even to Rome 
or to Toulouse in southern France. The Mohammedan Moors 
from Africa attacked Italy and Sicily, establishing them¬ 
selves firmly in many districts and turning the Mediterra¬ 
nean into a Mohammedan lake. Fierce Norse pirates harried 
every coast, and, swarming up the rivers, pierced the heart 
of the land. 

The Norsemen were a new branch of the Teutons, and the 
fiercest and wildest of that race. They dwelt in the Scandi¬ 
navian peninsulas, and were still heathen. They had taken 
no part in the earlier Teutonic invasions; but, in the ninth 
century, population was becoming too crowded for their bleak 
lands, and they were driven to seek new homes. Some of them 
colonized distant Iceland, and set up a free republic there; 
but the greater number resorted to raiding richer countries. 
The Swedes conquered Finns and Slavs on the east, while 


Remains of a Viking Ship found buried 
in sand at Gokstad, Norway. It is 
of oak, unpainted, 79' 4" by 16F; 6 
feet deep in the middle. 


Degenerate 

Carolingians 


New bar¬ 
barian in¬ 
roads 


The 

Norser er 










56 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The Teuton 
conquest of 
Britain, 
449-600 
A.D. 


Danish and Norse “Vikings”(“sons of the fiords”) set forth 
upon “the pathway of the swans,” in fleets, sometimes of 
hundreds of boats, to harry western Europe. Driving their 
light craft far up the rivers, they then seized horses and 
ravaged at will, sacking cities like Hamburg, Rouen, Paris, 
Nantes, Tours, Cologne, and stabling their steeds in the 
cathedral of Aachen about the tomb of Charlemagne. 

At last, like the earlier Teutons, the Norsemen from plun¬ 
derers became conquerors. They settled the Orkneys and 
Shetlands and patches on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, 
and finally established themselves in the north of France — 
named, from them, Normandy — and in the east of England. 

II. BRITAIN BECOMES ENGLAND 

We must go back to not6 how Britain had become England. 
In 408 the Roman legions were withdrawn from Britain to 
defend Italy against the threatened invasion by the Goths 
(p. 28). This left the dismayed Romanized Britons to defend 
themselves as best they could against Teutonic ravagers on 
the coasts and the wild Celts 1 of the Scottish mountains. 
The Britons called in the Teutons to beat off the other foe, 
and (449) these dangerous protectors began to take the land 
for their own. 

Many little Teutonic states were founded by the invaders, 
and gradually these small units were welded into larger king¬ 
doms, until there appeared seven main Teutonic states: 
Kent, the kingdom of the Jutes; Sussex, Essex, and Wessex 
(kingdoms of the South Saxons, East Saxons, and West Saxons); 
and East Anglia, Northumbria, and Mercia — kingdoms of 
Angles, or English, who were finally to give their name to the 
island. 

This conquest, unlike that of Gaul and Spain, was very slow. 
It took the Teutons a century and a half (till about 600) to 

1 Celt includes the Highland Scots, the Irish, the Gauls of France, and 
the native Britons of Britain before the Teutonic conquest. At an earlier 
period the Celts seem to have covered much of central Europe. 


THE MAKING OF ENGLAND 


57 


master the eastern half of the island. For this there were four The con- 
reasons. (1) The Angles and Saxons at home were living in qu ® st s ^ ow 
petty tribes and therefore could make no great organized thorough 
attack. (2) Coming by sea, they came necessarily in small 
bands. (3) They were still pagans: they spread ruthless de¬ 
struction and provoked desperate resistance, until, about 600 
a.d., Christianity began to win the heathen conquerors. 



St. Martin’s Church, Near Canterbury. — From a photograph. Parts 
of the building are very old, and may have belonged to a church of the 
Roman period. At all events, on this site was the first Christian church 
in Britain used by Augustine and his fellow missionaries, sent out by 
Pope Gregory. They secured the right to use it through the favor of 
Queen Bertha, a Frankish princess, who had married the king of Kent. 
A tomb, said to be Queen Bertha’s, is shown in the church. 

(4) Britain had been less completely Romanized than the con¬ 
tinental provinces were. There was more of forest and marsh, 
and a less extensive network of Roman roads: hence the na¬ 
tives found it easier to make repeated stands. 

Because the conquest was slow, it teas thorough. Eastern 
England became strictly a Teutonic land. Roman institutions, 
the Roman language, Christianity, even names for the most 
part, vanished, and the Romanized natives were slain, driven 
out, or enslaved. 











58 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 





















































THE MAKING OF ENGLAND 


59 


In the middle of the ninth century Egbert, king of the West 
Saxons, brought all the Teutonic parts of the island under his 
authority, though he was only head king over jealous tributary 
kings. Then came the Danish invasions — to shatter this 
new union, but, in the end, to cement it more firmly. The 
Danes, who had long harried the coasts, made their first 
permanent settlement in 850; and, in 871, after a great 
battle in which the king of Wessex was slain, they became for 
a time masters of England. The power of Wessex was soon 
revived however by Alfred the Great (871-901). The Danes 
were defeated, baptized, and shut off in the northeast, beyond 
W atling Street (an old Roman road from London to Chester); 
and all the Teutonic states in South England now willingly 
accepted the rule of Wessex for protection against the Dane. 

Alfred gave the rest of his splendid life to heal the wounds 
of his kingdom, and, more successfully than Charlemagne, 
to revive learning in a barbarous age — though at first he 
found “ not one priest ” in the kingdom who could understand 
the church services that he mumbled by rote. His great suc¬ 
cessors reconquered the Danelaw district, and under Edgar 
the Peaceful (957-975), his greatgrandson, the island rested 
in union and prosperity — so that even distant Celtic princes 
came to Edgar’s court to acknowledge his overlordship. 

III. FEUDALISM 

“A protest of barbarism against barbarism .”— Taine 

The barbarian invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries 
did not create a new society in Europe, as those of the fifth 
century had done; but they did force Europe to take on a 
new r military organization. After Charlemagne, the ninth 
century on the continent became a time of indescribable horror. 
The strong robbed the weak, and brigands worked their will 
in plunder and torture. 

But out of this anarchy emerged a new social order. Here 
and there, and in ever growing numbers, some petty chief — 


The Danes 
in England 


Alfred the 
Great 


The anarchj 
of the ninth 
century 
forces 
Europe intc 
Feudalism 


60 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 



retired bandit, rude huntsman, or old officer of a king — planted 
himself firmly on a small domain, fortifying a stockaded house 
and gathering a troop of fighters under him to protect it. By 
so doing, he became the protector of others. The neighbor¬ 
hood turned gladly to any strong man as its defender and master. 

Weaker landlords sur¬ 
rendered (“ commended”) 
their lands to him, receiv¬ 
ing them back as “fiefs.” 
They became his vassals; 
he became their lord. The 
former “free peasants,” 
on the lord’s own lands 
and on the lands of his 
vassals, saw that they 
were no longer at the 
mercy of any chance ma¬ 
rauder. They ventured 
again to plow and sow, 
and perhaps they were 
permitted in part to reap. 
On their part, they culti¬ 
vated also the lord’s crop, 
and paid him dues for 
house, for cattle, and for 
each sale or inheritance. 
The village became his 
village; the inhabitants, 
his villeins. Fugitive 
wretches, too, without the 
old resident’s claim to consideration, gathered on the lord’s lands 
to receive such measure of mercy as he might grant, and usually 
sank into the class of serfs (p. 23), of whom there were already 
many on all estates. 

In return for the protection he gave, the lord assumed 
great privileges, unspeakably obnoxious in later centuries, but 


Entrance to a Feudal Castle. — From 
Gautier’s La Chevalerie. The draw¬ 
bridge crossed the moat, or ditch, that 
surrounded a castle. When it was 
raised, the portcullis (whose massive iron 
teeth can be seen in the doorway) was 
let fall. 




FEUDALISM 


61 


in their origin connected with some benefit. The noble slew 
the wild beast — and came to have the sole right to hunt. 
As organizer of labor, he forced the villeins to build the mill 
{his mill), the oven, the ferry, the bridge, the highway; then 
he took toll for the use of each, and later he demolished mills 
that the villeins wished to build for themselves. 



Bodiam Castle in England — present condition of a fine medieval struc¬ 
ture. Note the water in the moat. The student will find in encyclope¬ 
dias some interesting history for this castle. 


After the Teutonic conquests of the fifth century, most 
common Teutonic freemen became small farmers. By 
these changes of the ninth century this free class almost 
disappeared from France, though it still survived in 
England. 

Finally each district had its body of mailed horsemen and its 
circle of frowning castles. These two features typify the new 
order — which we call feudalism. 

Castles rose at every ford and above each mountain pass 
and on every hill commanding a fertile plain. At first the 


Origin of 
the feudal 
privileges of 
the nobles 










62 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The 

feudal 

castle 


A.nd the 
ironclad 
cavalry 


Feudal 
“ decentral¬ 
ization ” 


“ castles” were mere wooden blockhouses; but soon they grew 
into those enormous structures of massive stone, crowned by 
frowning battlements and inclosing many acres of ground, 
whose picturesque gray ruins still dot the landscape in Europe. 

Upon even the early and simple castle, the Norse invader 
spent his force in vain ; and the mailed horsemen kept him from 

ravaging the open country. The old 
Frankish infantry had proved too slow to 
bring to bay the nomad Hungarians on 
their agile shaggy ponies, or the Danes with 
their swift boats. But now each castle was 
ready to pour forth its band of trained 
men-at-arms (horsemen in mail), either to 
gather with other bands into an army, or 
by themselves to cut off stragglers and hold 
the fords. The raider’s day was over — 
but meanwhile the old Teutonic militia, in 
which every freeman had his place, had 
given way to an ironclad cavalry, the re¬ 
sistless weapon of a new feudal aristocracy, 
which could ride down foot-soldiers ( infan¬ 
try) at will — till the invention of gunpow¬ 
der, centuries later, helped again to make 
fighting men equal. 

In government, feudalism was extreme 
decentralization. Each petty district was 
practically independent of every other dis¬ 
trict. The king had been expected to protect every corner 
of his realm. Actually he had protected only some central 
district; but under feudalism each little chieftain proved able 
to protect his small corner, when he had seized the king’s powers 
there. His territory was a little state. The great nobles coined 
money and made war like very kings. Indeed a vassal owed 
allegiance to his overlords two or more grades above him only 
through the one overlord just above him. He must follow his 
immediate lord to war against them and even against his king. 



Knight in Plate 
Armor, visor up. 
— From Lacroix, 
Vie Militaire. Plate 
armor came in only 
about 1300, suc¬ 
ceeding a lighter 
armor of chain mail. 




FEUDALISM 


63 



This decentralization was the result not only of military needs 
but also of economic 1 needs — of the lack of money and 
the lack of roads. The rich man’s wealth was all in land; 
and he could make his land pay him only by renting it out for 
services or for produce. “Nobles” paid him for parts of it 
by fighting for him. Workers paid him for other parts by rais¬ 
ing and harvesting his crops and by giving him part of their 


An Act of Homage. — From a twelfth century manuscript. 

own. A man without land was glad to pay for the use of some 
in one way br the other. 

In theory, the holder of any piece of land was a tenant of some 
higher landlord. The king was the supreme landlord. He let 
out most of the land of the kingdom, on terms of military serv¬ 
ice, to great vassals who swore fealty to him. Each of these 
parceled out most of what he received, on like terms, to smaller 
vassals; and so on, perhaps through six or seven steps, until 
the smallest division was reached that could support a mailed 
horseman for the noble’s life of fighting. 

1 Economics refers to wealth, as politics does to government. 


Economic 
causes of 
feudalism 


Feudal 

land- 

holding 









64 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Lords 

and vassals 


Private 

war 


iC 


In 'practice, there was no such regularity. The various grades 
were interlocked in the most confusing way. Except for the 
smallest knights, all landlords of the fighting class were “ suze¬ 
rains” (liege lords); and, except perhaps the king, all were 
vassals. There was no great social distinction between lord 
and vassals. They lived on terms of familiarity and mutual 
respect. The “vassal” was always a “noble,” and his service 
was always “honorable,” — never to be confounded with the 

ignoble” service paid by 


serfs and villeins. 

The relation between 
suzerain and vassal had the 
character of a bargain for 
mutual advantage. The 
vassal was to present him¬ 
self at the call of his lord 
to serve in war, with fol¬ 
lowers according to the size 
of his fief, but only for 



A Baron’s Court. — From a sixteenth 
century woodcut. 


shoit terms and usually not to go “out of the realm.” He 
must also serve in the lord’s “court” twice or thrice a year, to 
advise in matters of policy and to give judgment in disputes 
between vassals. He did not pay “taxes,” in our sense, but on 
frequent occasions he did have to make to the lord certain 
financial contributions—“reliefs” and “aids.” The lord, on 
his part, was bound to defend his vassal, to treat him justly, 
and to see that he found just treatment from his co-vassals. 

Feudal theory, then, paid elaborate regard to rights; but 
feudal practice was mainly a matter of force. There was no 
adequate machinery for obtaining justice: it was not ea" 
to en orce the decisions of the crude courts against a noble 
offender who chose to resist. War, too, was thought the most 
honorable and perhaps the most religious way to settle dis¬ 
putes. . Like the trial by combat, it was considered an appeal 
to the judgment of God. Naturally, “private wars,” between 
noble and noble, became a chief evil of the age. They hindered 














FEUDALISM 


65 




the growth of industry, and commonly they hurt neutral parties 
quite as much as they hurt belligerents. There was little actual 
suffering by the warring 
nobles, and very little 
heroism. Indeed, there 
was little actual fighting. 

The weaker party usually 
shut itself up in its castle. 

The stronger side ravaged 
the villages in the neigh¬ 
borhood, driving off the 
cattle and perhaps tortur¬ 
ing the peasants for their 
small hidden treasures, 
and outraging the women. 

Clergy and nobles, praying class and fighting class, were The 
supported by a vastly larger number of “ignoble” workers, who j^nor 

were usually referred to only 
as other live stock might be 
mentioned. Each noble had to 
keep some of his land for the 
support of his own household 
and for other revenue. This 
“domain” land was cultivated 
by the lord’s serfs and villeins, 
under direction of a bailiff, or 
steward. The peasant workers 
did not live in scattered farm¬ 
houses, each on its own field: 
they were grouped in little 
villages of twenty or fifty dwell¬ 
ings, as in Europe to-day. 

Such a village, with its adjoining 
“fields,” was a “manor” 

Each manor had its church, at a little distance, and usually 
its manor house — the lord’s castle on a hill above the other 


Interior View of the Window 
Shown in Melichope Manor 
House. The wall was so deep 
that the stairway was cut into it. 


An Ancient Manor House, Melichope, 
England. — From Wright’s Homes of 
Other Days. 






































































66 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Serfs 

and 

villeins 


dwellings, or maybe a house only a trifle better than the homes 
of the villeins, used by the lord’s steward. At one end of the 
street stood the lord s smithy; and near by, on some convenient 
stream, was the lord’s mill. 



As in the last Roman days, the serf was bound to the 
soil by law: he could not leave it, but neither could he be sold 
apart from it. He had his own bit of ground to cultivate, at 

such times as the lord’s 
bailiff did not call him 
to labor on the lord’s 
land. Usually the 
bailiff summoned the 
serfs in turn, each for 
two or for three days 
each w^eek; but in har¬ 
vest or haying he might 
keep them all busy, to 
the ruin of their own 
little crops. If the serf 
did get a crop, he had 
to pay a large part of 
it for the use of his 
land. He paid also a 
multitude of other dues 

. an d fines — sometimes 

m money, but usually “in kind,” —eggs, a goose, a cock, a 
calf, a portion of grain. 

The villein was a step higher. He was “free” in person, 
at is, he could leave his land and change lords at will; but 
e ad to have some lord. The landless and masterless man was 
an outlaw at the mercy of any lord. In profits from labor and in 
manner of life, there was little to choose between serf and villein 
The peasant homes , 1 serf’s or villein’s, were low, filthy 


Villeins Receiving Directions. — From a 
miniature in a fifteenth century manuscript. 


1 The most graphic treatments of 
87-112; Jenks’ Edward Plantagenet, 
and Social History of England, 31-52. 


peasant life are in Jessopp’s Friars, 
46-52; and in Cheyney’s Industrial 


























LIFE AND WORK IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


67 


earth-floored, straw-thatched, one-room hovels of wood and 
sticks plastered together with mud. There was no chimney 
except a hole in the roof, and usually no other opening (no 
window) except the door. These homes straggled along either 
side of an irregular lane, where poultry, pigs, and children 
played together in the dirt. Behind each house was its weedy 
garden patch and its low stable and barn. These last were 
often under the same roof as the living room of the family, — as 
is still true sometimes in parts of Germany. 



A Reaper’s Cart Going Uphill. — After Jusserand’s English Wayfaring 
Life; from a fourteenth century manuscript. The force of men and 
horses indicates the nature of the roads. The steepness of the hill is, of 
course, exaggerated, so as to fit the picture to the space in the manuscript. 

The house, small as it was, was not cluttered with furniture. 
A handmill for grinding meal, or at least a stone mortar 
in which to crush grain, a pot and kettle, possibly a feather 
bed, one or two rude benches, and a few tools for the peasant’s 
work, made up the contents of even the well-to-do homes. 

Farming was very crude. The ylowland was divided into 
three great “fields.” These were unfenced, and lay about the 
village at any convenient spots. One field was sown to wheat 
(in the fall); one to rye or barley (in the spring); and the third 
lay fallow, to recuperate. The next year this third field would 
be the wheat land, while the old wheat field would raise the 


Homes of 
the 

peasants 


Cultivation 
of the 
land in 
common 












68 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Small 
variety 
in food 


barley, and so on. This primitive “rotation of crops” kept a 
third of the land idle. 

Every “field” was divided into a great number of narrow 
strips, each as nearly as possible a “furrow-long,” and one, two, 
or four rods, wide, so that each contained from a quarter of an 
acre to an acre. Usually the strips were separated by “balks,” 
or ridges of turf. A peasant’s holding was about thirty acres, 
ten acres in each “field”; and his share in each lay not in one 

piece, but in fifteen or 
thirty scattered strips. 

This kind of holding 
compelled a “ com¬ 
mon” cultivation. 
That is, each man must 
sow what his neighbor 
sowed; and as a rule, 
each could sow, till, 
and harvest only when 
his neighbors did. 
Serfs were not intelli¬ 
gent or willing workers, 
and even the lord’s 
stewards did not know 
how to get good returns 
from the land. Three¬ 
fold the seed, or six 
bushels of wheat to the 
acre, w T as a good crop in 
the thirteenth century. 
Farm animals were small. The wooden plow required eight 
oxen, and then it did hardly more than scratch the surface of 
the ground. Carts were few and cumbrous. There was little 
or no cultivation of root foods. Potatoes, of course, were ^un- 
known. Sometimes a few turnips and cabbages and carrots, 
rather uneatable varieties probably, were grown in garden 
plots behind the houses. Beer was brewed from the barley. 



Peasants’ May Dance. — From a miniature 
in the Biblioth^que Nationale in Paris. 
The dress at least is idealized. 




LIFE AND WORK IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


69 


Well-to-do peasants had a hive of bees in the garden plot. 

Honey was the chief luxury of the poor: sugar was still un¬ 
known in Europe. 

The most important crop was the wild hay, upon which the 
cattle had to be fed during the winter. Meadowland was twice 
as valuable as plowland. The meadow was fenced for the hay 
harvest, but was afterward thrown open for pasture. Usually 



Falconry. — From a medieval manuscript reproduced by Lacroix. A 
falconer, to capture and train young hawks to bring game to the master, 
was among the most trusted under-officials of each castle. 


there were other more distant but extensive pasture and wood 
lands, where lord and villagers fattened their cattle and swine. 

It was difficult to carry enough animals through the winter 
for the necessary farm work and breeding; so those to be used 
for food were killed in the fall and salted down. The large use 
of salt meat and the little variety in food caused loathsome 
diseases. 

Each village was a world hy itself. Even the different villages Life 
of the same lord had little intercourse with one another. The the 
lord’s bailiff secured from some distant market the three outside 






















70 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


products needed, — salt, millstones, and iron for the plow¬ 
shares and for other tools. .Except for this, a village was 
hardly touched by the outside world — unless a war desolated 
it, or a royal procession chanced to pass through it. 

This shut-in life seems to us cheerless and degrading and 
often indescribably ferocious and indecent. Pictures in manu¬ 
scripts of the time, however, show that it had occasional 



The Exercise op the Quintain. — This shows an important part of the 
schooling of noble children. The boys ride, by turns, at the wooden 
figure. If the rider strikes the shield squarely in the center, it is well. If 
he hits only a glancing blow, the wooden figure swings on its foot and 
whacks him with its club as he passes. 


Life in 
the castle 


festivities; and at least it was a step up from the slavery 
of earlier times. 

The noble classes lived a life hardly more attractive to us. 
They dwelt in gloomy fortresses over dark dungeons where 
prisoners rotted. They had fighting for business, and hunting 
with hound and hawk, and playing at fighting (in tournament 
and joust), for pleasures. The ladies busied themselves over 
tapestries and embroideries, in the chambers. Gay pages 







LIFE AND WORK IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


71 


flitted through the halls, or played at chess in the deep windows. 
And in the courtyard lounged gruff men-at-arms, ready with 
blind obedience to follow the lord of the castle on any foray 
or even in an attack upon their king. 

The noble hunted for food, quite as much as for sport, and" 
he did not suffer from lack of fresh meat. The game in forest 
and stream was his: for a common man to kill deer or hare or 
wild duck or trout, was to lose hand or eyes 
or life. 

Feasting filled a large part of the noble’s 
life. Meals were served in the great hall of 
the castle, and were the social hours of the 
day. Tables were set out on movable trestles, 
and the household, visitors, and dependents 
gathered about them on seats and benches, 
with nice respect for rank, — the master and 
his noblest guests at the head, on a raised 
platform, or “dais,” and the lowest servants 
toward the bottom of the long line. A pro¬ 
fusion of food in many courses, especially at 
the midday “ dinner,” was carried in from the 
kitchen across the open courtyard. Peacocks, 
swans, whole boars, or at least boar heads, 
were among the favorite roasts; and huge 
venison “ pies ” were a common dish. Mother 
Goose’s “four and twenty blackbirds” had real models in many 
a medieval pasty, which, when opened, let live birds escape, to 
be hunted down among the rafters of the hall by falcons. 

At each guesPs place was a knife, to cut slices from the roasts 
within his reach, and a spoon for broths, but no fork or napkin 
or plate. Each one dipped his hand into the pasties, carrying 
the dripping food directly to his mouth. Loaves of bread 
were crumbled up and rolled between the hands to wipe off the 
surplus gravy, and then thrown to the dogs under the tables; 
and between courses, servants passed basins of water and 
towels. The food was washed down with huge draughts of 



A Court Fool. — 
After a medieval 
miniature in bril¬ 
liant colors. Many- 
great lords kept 
such jesters. 


Hunting 


Feasting 
and story 
telling 


72 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


wine, usually diluted with water. Intervals between courses 
were filled with story-telling and song, or by rude jokes from 
the lord’s “fool,” or perhaps traveling jugglers were brought in 
to entertain the company. 



IV. THE CHURCH IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


The church 
also a 

government 


The priest 


The bishop 


The church in the feudal age was not only a religious organiza¬ 
tion : it was also a government. Its officers exercised many 
powers that have now been handed over to civil 1 officers. 
Public order depended upon it almost as completely as did 
private morals. With its spiritual thunders and the threat of 
its curse, it often protected the widow and orphan, and others 
in danger of oppression, from brutal barons who had respect 
for no earthly power. 

All Christendom was made up of 'parishes, — the smallest 
church units. Commonly, a parish was a farming village- (a 
manor) or a part of a town. At its head was a priest, who, in 
large city parishes, was assisted by deacons to look after the 
poor. 

A group of parishes made up the diocese of a bishop. Nearly 
every town of any consequence in the twelfth century was a 
bishop’s seat, and so gained the name city. The bishop was 
the mainspring in church government. He was revered as 
the successor of the apostles, and was subject only to the 


1 Civil is used very commonly in contrast to ecclesiastical. 


























THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH 


73 


guidance of the pope, who was successor to the chief of the 
apostles. Originally, the bishop’s special duty had been to over¬ 
see the parish priests; but, with the growth of the church, 
he had come to have other functions. He was a great feudal 
landlord, owing military service to one or more suzerain^ 
and holding power over many temporal vassals. He had 
charge of extensive church property in his diocese, and of the 
collection of church revenues. And he looked after the enforce¬ 
ment of the laws of the church. This “canon law” had grown Bishops’ 
into a complex system. To administer justice under it, each courts 
bishop held a court, made up of trained churchmen, over which 
he presided. This court had jurisdiction not merely over 
matters pertaining to the church : it tried any case that involved 
a clergyman or any one else under the special protection of 
the church. 

To help in these duties, the bishop had a body of assistant 
clergy called canons. On the death of the bishop, this body 
(the “cathedral chapter”) chose his successor, — subject per¬ 
haps to the approval of some king or other temporal ruler. 

This right of the clergy to be tried in clerical courts was Benefit 
known as “benefit of clergy.” The practice had its good side. of 

0 clergy 

Ordinary courts and ordinary law partook of the violent and 
ferocious life of the age. Trials were rude; and ghastly punish¬ 
ments were inflicted for trivial offenses, — often, no doubt, 
upon the innocent. It was a gain when the peaceful and moral 
part of society secured the right to trial in more intelligent courts 
and by more civilized codes. Moreover, in the Middle Ages, 
all corporations, evendrade gilds, very commonly had courts 
with considerable power of jurisdiction over their own members. 

It was natural, therefore, for the church to have like powers 
over its clergy. 

But the church law was too mild to deal with serious crimes. 

Its advantages tempted men to “take Holy Orders,” until, 
besides the preaching clergy and the monks, the land swarmed 
with “ clerics” who were really only lawyers, secretaries, scholars, 


74 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


teachers, or mere adventurers. Some of these, by their crimes, 
brought disgrace upon the church and danger to the state. 


The arch¬ 
bishop 


The pope 


College of 
cardinals 


Excommu¬ 

nication 


A number of dioceses made up a province, — which was usu¬ 
ally one of the old divisions of that name under the Roman 
Empire. Over each province, seated in its most important 
city, was an archbishop, or metropolitan. The archbishop 
was a bishop also of one diocese, and he had a general super¬ 
vision, but not a very definite one, over the other bishops of 
the province. His court, too, heard appeals from theirs. 

At the head of all this church hierarchy stood the pope, the 
spiritual monarch of Christendom. He was supreme lawgiver, 
supreme judge, supreme executive. He issued new laws in the 
form of hulls (so-called from the gold seal, or bulla, on the docu¬ 
ments), and he set aside old laws by his dispensations, — as 
when it seemed best to him to permit cousins to marry (a thing 
forbidden by the canon law). His court heard appeals from 
the courts of bishop and archbishop, and likewise from many 
of the temporal courts of Christendom. Now and then he 
set aside appointments of bishops and other clergy, and himself 
filled the vacancies. At times he also sent legates into different 
countries, to represent his authority directly. A legate could 
revoke the judgment of a bishop’s court, remove bishops, and 
haughtily command obedience from kings, — quite as Shakspere 
pictures in his King John. 

For aid in his high office, the pope gathered about him a 
college 1 of cardinals.” At first this body comprised only seven 
bishops of Rome and its vicinity; but it grew finally to include 
great churchmen in all countries. 

To compel obedience, bishops and pope had two mighty 
weapons — excommunication and interdict. An excommuni¬ 
cated man was shut out from all religious communion. He 
could attend no church service, receive no sacrament, and at 
death, if still unforgiven, his body could not receive Christian 
burial. Excommunication was also a boycott for all social 

1 “College,” in this sense, means merely a “collection” of people. 


THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH 


75 


and business relations. If obeyed by the community, it cut a 
man off absolutely from all communication with his fellows, and 
made him an outlaw. No one might speak to him or give him 
food or shelter, under danger of similar penalty, and his very^X 
presence was shunned like the pestilence. 

What excommunication was to the individual, the interdict Interdict 
was to a district or a nation. Churches were closed, and no 
religious ceremonies were permitted, except the rites of baptism 
and of extreme unction. No marriage could be performed, and 
there could be no burial in consecrated ground. “The dead 
were left unburied, and the living were unblessed.” 

Thus the church was a vast centralized monarchy, with its 
regular officers, its laws and legislatures and judges, its taxes, 
its terrible punishments — and its promise of eternal reward. 

And yet this government was more democratic in spirit than The de- 
feudal society was. Men of humblest birth often rose to its 
loftiest offices. Gregory VII, who set his foot upon the neck 
of the mightiest king in Europe, was the son of a poor peasant. 

The church was the only part of society in the Middle Ages 
where study and intellectual ability could lift a poor boy to 
power — and so it was recruited by the best minds. 

Of all this mighty organization, the village priest brought The priest 
the church closest home to the mass of the people. The great 
ecclesiastics — bishops, archbishops, and abbots — were often of the 
from the noble class by birth, and in any case they always be- viUage 
came part of the aristocracy. But the rural priest was com¬ 
monly a peasant in origin^ and he often remained essentially a 
peasant in his life, — marrying in the village (until the eleventh 
century) and working in the fields with his neighbors. He was 
a peasant with a somewhat better income than his fellows, 
with a little learning, a revered position, and with great power 
for good. He christened, absolved, married, and buried his 
parishioners, looked after their bodily welfare so far as he knew 
how, comforted the heart-sore and wretched, and taught all, 
by word and example, to hold fast to right living. 


76 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The friars 
and 

town life 


Local self- 
government 
and the idea 
of represen¬ 
tation in 
Saxon 
England 


The church building was also the social center of the parish. 
Near it, on Sunday, between the sacred services, the people 
found their chief recreation in sports and games. And from 
its steps the priest gave to them what news they received from 
the outside world, reading aloud there, too, any rare letter 
that some adventurous wanderer might be able to get written 
for him by some stranger-priest. 

From time to time new organs developed within the 
church to meet new needs. In the twelfth century, when, as 
we shall see, towns began to grow up, these did not fit into the 
old organization of the church. Neither parish priests nor monks 
took care of the religious needs of the new, crowded populations. 
The poorer inhabitants were miserable in body, too, beyond all 
words, — fever and plague stricken, perishing of want and filth 
and wretchedness such as no modern city knows. But early in 
the thirteenth century, these conditions, together with the spread 
of heretical movements, called forth a general religious revival, 
with the rise of two new religious orders — the Franciscan and 
the Dominican brotherhoods. 

These “begging friars” went forth, two and two, to the poor 
and the outcasts, living from day to day in the midst of noisome 
wretchedness, to act as healers and preachers. They nursed 
lepers, ministered to the poor, and with short, homely speech, 
preached to all the love of Christ and the call to turn from sin. 
They were missionary monks. 

V. ENGLAND IN THE FEUDAL AGE 

The splendid story of England for the thousand years from 
Alfred the Great to the present day is also, most of it, the story 
of the foundations of American liberty. And so, even in this 
brief sui\ ex , that story is told more fully than other topics are. 

Long befoie the year 1000 the Saxons in England had learned 
to work many forms of local self-government — to manage many 
of their own affairs at their own doors, not only in village 
(manoi) courts, but also in courts (assemblies) of the larger 
units, the hundreds and shires (counties). Moreover, they had 


77 


ENGLAND IN THE FEUDAL AGE 



Plowing. — From an Anglo-Saxon manu¬ 
script in the British Museum. 


become familiar with the practice of sending a sort of representa- 
tire from the village to these larger assemblies — since all men 
could not attend these in person. 

True, after the year 900 an irregular Saxon feudalism had been 
growing up; and these local “courts” had fallen largely under 
the control of neighboring landlords. Still enough activity 

among the people themselves survived so that these assemblies, 
with their representative 
principle, were to prove the 
cradle of later English and 
American liberty. 

In 1066 came the Nor¬ 
man Conquest. In long 
succession in earlier times, 
conquering Briton, Roman, 

Saxon, Dane, had brought 
in each his peculiar con¬ 
tributions. Now for the 

last time in history a host of conquering invaders established 
themselves in the island. A century and a half before, Norse 
pirates had settled in a province of northern France. In that 
distiict of Normandy, they had quickly become leaders in 
Frankish civilization, and now they transplanted it among 
the ruder Saxons of England, along with much new blood and 
new elements in language. 

For our purpose here, the most important Norman contribu¬ 
tion was his contribution in government. Since the time of 
Alfred, the chief dangers to England had been (1) a possible 
splitting apart of Danish north and Saxon south, and (2) the 
growth of feudal anarchy. The Norman crushed the old north 
and south into one, and built up a central government strong 
enough to control the feudal nobles and to prevent them from 
dividing the kingly power among themselves. 

Local institutions, in the main, remained Saxon, but the 
central government gained a new efficiency from the Norman 
genius for organization. 


^7 

Saxon 

feudalism 


The 

Norman 

Conquest, 

1066 


A more 
efficient 
central 
government 














78 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


A thousand- 
year 
struggle 
for liberty 


At the same time, the Norman kings were not supreme 
enough to become absolute despots. This was chiefly because, 
through dread of the new royal power, conquering Norman 
noble and conquered Saxon people drew together quickly into 
an English nation — the first true nation of Europe. Then, in 
centuries of slow, determined progress, this new nation won 
constitutional liberty. 


“ Lance and torch and tumult, steel and gray-goose wing, 
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the king.” 



Battle of Hastings. — From the Bayeux Tapestry. The Bayeux Tapes¬ 
try is a linen band 230 feet long and 20 inches wide, embroidered in colored 
worsteds, with 72 scenes illustrating the Norman Conquest. It was a con¬ 
temporary work. The scene given here pertains to the close of the battle. 
Harold, the Saxon king, supported by his chosen hus-carles, is making 
the final stand, beneath the Dragon standard against the Norman horse. 


And not merely by fighting in the field was this liberty won, 
but, even more, by countless almost unrecorded martyrdoms 
of heroic and often nameless men, on the scaffold, in the dun¬ 
geon, or, harder still, in broken lives and ruined homes. Thus 
did Englishmen, at a great price, work out, first of all peoples 
for a large territory, the union of a strong central government 
and of free institutions. 

The Conquest drew isolated England back into the thick 
of continental politics. Henry II (1154-1189) was the most 













ENGLAND IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


79 


powerful monarch of Europe, ruling not only England but more Reforms of 
than half France as well — as a nominal vassal of the French Henr y 11 
king. Still all the really important results of his long and busy law cou/ts 
reign came in England. Preeminent stands out the organization 



A Norman Door in Canterbury Cathedral. — Note the massive 
round arch and the simple but effective ornament. 


of the English courts of justice, with circuit judges to spread 
a “common” law throughout the entire realm — in place of 
the varying local customs found in feudal courts in the con¬ 
tinental countries. At this same time came the development 





















80 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Circuit 
judges and 
the Common 
Law 


Magna 

Carta, 

1215 


of our grand jury and also of our trial jury. Henry’s reforms, 
as completed a century later by the great Edward, gave us the 
English judicial system of the present day in almost ever; 
particular. 

Between the great Henry and the even greater Edward came 
three weak, would-be tyrants — Richard, John, and the third 
Henry. The misrule of John resulted in Magna Carta; that 
of Henry, in the first true Parliament. 



Facsimile (reduced) of the Opening of Magna Carta. — The es¬ 
cutcheons in the margin are later embellishments. They are supposed 
to be the coats of arms of barons who signed as witnesses. 


1. In 1215, in a grassy meadow of the Thames called Runny- 
mede, the tyrant John, backed only by a few mercenaries and 
confronted by a people in arms, found himself forced to sign 
the Great Charter, “the first great document in the Bible of 
English Liberties.” 

In the main, the charter merely restated ancient liberties; 
but the closing provision expressly sanctioned rebellion against 
a king who should refuse to obey it. That is, it set the law of 
the land above the Icing s will. Prue, in some other countries 





GROWTH OF ENGLISH LIBERTY 


81 


during the Middle Ages, the great vassals extorted charters of 
liberties for themselves from their kings. But the peculiar 
features of this Charter are: (1) the barons promised to their 
dependents the same rights they demanded for themselves from 
the king; and (2) special provisions looked after the welfare 
of townsmen and even of villeins. The wording, necessarily, 
belongs to a feudal age; but, as a new society and new needs 
giew up, men read new meanings into the old language and 
made it fit the new age. In the next two centuries, English 
kings were obliged to “confirm” it thirty-eight times; and its 
principles, and some of its wording, have passed into the con¬ 
stitution and laws of every American state. 

The Charter defined precisely the “aids” to which suzerains 
were entitled, — and so put an end to extortion. It declared 
that the king could raise no scutage 1 or other unusual “aid” 
from his vassals without the consent of the Great Council,— and 
since all vassals of the king had a right to attend this Council, 
this provision established the principle, No taxation without 
the consent of the taxed. It declared an accused man entitled 
to speedy trial, — and so laid the foundation for later laws of 
“habeas corpus.” It affirmed that no villein, by any fine, 
should lose his oxen or plow, and so foreshadowed our modern 
laws providing that legal suits shall not take from a man his 
home or his tools. 

2. Henry II and Edward I were the two great “lawgivers” 
among the English kings. But Henry carried his many 
reforms, not by royal decrees, but by a series of “assizes” 
(codes) drawn up by the Great Council; and Edward carried 
his in an qyen longer series of “statutes” enacted by a new 
national legislature which we call Parliament. 

Some sort of “Assembly” has always made part of the English 
government. Under the Saxon kings, the Witan (or meeting of 
Wisemen) sanctioned codes of laws and even deposed and elected 
kings. It consisted of large landowners and officials and the 
higher clergy, with now and then some mingling of more 

1 A sort of war tax recently introduced in the place of military service. 


And 

American 

liberty 


The 

beginnings 

of 

Parliament 


82 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

democratic elements, and it was far more powerful than the 
Frankish Mayfield. 

After the Conquest, the Witan gave way to the Great Council 
of the Norman kings. This was a feudal gathering — made 
up of lords and bishops, resembling the Witan, but more aris¬ 
tocratic, and less powerful. A king was supposed to rule “with 
the advice and consent” of his Council; but in practice that 
body was merely the king’s mouthpiece until Henry II raised 
it to real importance. 

Magna Carta prescribed just how the Council should be called 
together. All who held land directly of the king (“tenants- 
in-chief,” or “barons”) were entitled to be present, but only 
the “great barons” ever came. According to the Charter, 
thereafter the great barons were to be summoned individually 

1 i t/ 

by letter, and the numerous smaller barons by a general notice 
read by the sheriffs in the court of each county. 

Still the smaller barons failed to assemble; and in the trou¬ 
bles of the reign of Henry III, on two or three occasions, the 
sheriffs had been directed to see to it that each county sent 
knights to the gathering. Thus a representative element was 
introduced into the National Assembly. 

This was a thoroughly natural step for Englishmen to 
take. The principle of representative government was no 
way new to them. It had taken root long before in local 
institutions. The “four men” of each township present in 
court of hundred or shire (p. 76) spoke for all their town¬ 
ship. The sworn “jurors” of a shire who gave testimony 
in compiling Domesday Book under William I, or who 
“presented” offenders for trial under Henry II, spoke for 
the whole shire. England was familiar with the practice 
of selecting certain men from a community to speak for the 
community as a whole. The same principle was now 
applied in a larger, central gathering, for all England. 

Then in 1265 the glorious rebel, Simon of Montfort, gave 
us a real “Parliament.” He had been leading the people 


RISE OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT 


83 



against the weak, ill-ruling king, and had made him prisoner, 
and now he called a national assembly to settle the government. 
This time not only was each shire invited to send two knights, 
but each borough (town) to send two burgesses, to sit with the 
usual lords. Simon wanted the moral support of the nation, to 
be given by an assembly representing all classes. The “ Great 
Council of royal vassals” 
was replaced, by a “Par¬ 
liament” representing the 
people of England. Then, 
in 1295, after some varia¬ 
tions, Edward adopted this 
model of Simon’s; and for 
the first time in history 
representative government 
was firmly established for 
a nation. 

Half a century later, 

Parliament divided into 
two Houses. Edward’s 
“Model Parliament” of 
1295, like Simon’s, con¬ 
tained the “three estates” 1 
— clergy, nobles, and bur¬ 
gesses. The greater nobles 
and the greater clergy had 
personal summons; the other classes were represented by dele¬ 
gates, — the smaller landholders by the elected “ knights of the 
shire,” the towns by their chosen burgesses, and the lower clergy 
by elected representatives, one for each district. 

At first all sat together. Had this continued, the townsmen 
would never have secured much voice: they would have been 
frightened and overawed by the nobles. The result would 
have been about as bad if the three estates had come to sit 


The Hall of Stoke Manor House, a 
very modest “castle” of the thirteenth 
century in England. — From Wright’s 
Homes of Other Days. 


The ^ 
Parliaments 
of 1265 
and 1295 


The two 
“ Houses ” 


1 “Estate,” 

privileges. 


so used, means a class of people with distinct duties and 




84 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 



separately, as they did in France and Spain. With so many 
distinct orders, an able king could easily have played off one 
against the other. But England followed a different course. The 
inferior clergy, very happily, soon refused to attend Parliament. 
The great spiritual lords (bishops and abbots), with personal 
summons, were not very numerous by themselves, and so they 
sat with the great lay lords. Thus, when the different orders 


xt ! +1 f ^ Dinner. — From a fourteenth century manuscript. 
. °te the dogs, the musicians, and the barefooted monk, at whom the 
jester is directing some witticism. 

began to sit apart, the great peers, lay and spiritual, who were 
summoned by individual letters, made a “ House of Lords,” 
while the representative elements — knights of the shire and 
burgesses, who had been accustomed to act together in shire 
courts — came together, in the national assembly, as the “ House 
of Commons.” 

The three estates faded into two; and even these two were not 
distinct. For in England, unlike the case upon the continent, 
only the oldest son of a lord succeeded to his father’s title and 











c 




























































FRANCE IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


85 


nobility, and to the right to a personal summons to the House 
of Lords. ^ The younger sons — and even the oldest son during 
his father s life belonged in the gentry (gentleman) class, 
and at most were “ knights of the shire ” As such, oftentimes, 
the son or the brother of an earl sat for his county in the House 
of C ommons beside the shopkeeper from the town. The gentry 

in the Commons formed a link to bind Lords and Commons to¬ 
gether. 


The 

“ gentry ” 
a link be¬ 
tween 
“ Lords ” 
and 

“Commons” 


VI. OTHER LANDS IN THE FEUDAL AGE 

In 987 in Fi ance the degenerate Carolingian 1 line gave way France in 
to Hugh Capet, founder of the long line of Capetian kings. the feudal 
Hugh Capet found France broken into feudal fragments. 

These, in the next three centuries, he and his descendants 
welded into a new French nation. 

It was not the people here who fused 
themselves into a nation in a long 
struggle against royal despotism, as 
in England: it was the kings who 
made the French nation , in a long 
struggle against feudal anarchy 
within and foreign conquest from 
without. 

Philip Augustus (1180-1223) at 
the opening of his reign ruled 
directly only one twelfth of modern 
France — only one sixth as much of 
it as was then ruled by Henry II of 
England — and held not one seaport. At the close of his reign 
Philip ruled directly two thirds of France. The consolidation 
of the realm was mainly completed by his grandson, Louis IX 
(St. Louis), and by Louis’ grandson, Philip the Fair (1285-1314). 

And as the kings won the soil of France piece by piece, so Growth of 
too they added gradually to the royal power, until this Philip r °y aI P° wer 

1 The name Carolingian, from Carolus, the Latin form of Charles, is applied 
to all the rulers of Charlemagne’s line. 



Jugglers in the Sword 
Dance. —From a thirteenth 
century manuscript. 


Growth of 
the king’s 
territory 











86 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The 

Estates 

General 


the Fair and his successors were the most autocratic sovereigns in 
Europe in their day. France was divided into districts ruled 
by royal officers. Each such appointed officer, as representative 
of the king, held vast power, appointing all inferior officers in 
his district, collecting the royal revenues, and controlling the 
administration in every detail. These royal officers were chosen 
from men of humble birth—that they might not aspire too much. 

The feudal loi ds had lost all authority except over their serfs 
and villeins; the small vassals and their townsmen were pro¬ 
tected now from their rapacity and capricious tyranny. In 
England this escape had come, a little earlier, through the courts, 
the itinerant justices, and the free principles of the common law; 
and Englishmen grew to have an instinctive reverence for 
courts and law as the protectors of liberty. In France the 
like security came through the despotic power intrusted to their 
officers by the absolute French kings; and for centuries Frenchmen 
came to trust autocracy as Englishmen trusted law. 

This contrast is shown, in part, in the history of the French 
institution which most resembled the English Parliament. 
Philip the Fair completed his reforms by adding representatives 
of the towns to the nobles and clergy in the Great Council of 
France. This brought together all three “estates”; and the 
gathering was called the Estates General, to distinguish it from 
smaller gatherings in the separate provinces. The first meet¬ 
ing m this form was held in 1302, only a few years after the 
“Model Parliament” in England. But Philip and his successors 
used the Estates General only as a convenient taxing machine. 

It never became a governing body, as the English Parliament did. 
Nor did the French people know how to value it, as the English 
quickly learned to value Parliament. The kings assembled the 
Estates General only when they chose, and easily controlled it 
When they no longer needed it, the meetings grew rarer, and 
finally ceased, without protest by the people. 

. German y the Carohngian line died out even sooner than 
m France, and then the princes chose a Saxon duke for King 




















































. 








































































































■ 





































































































GERMANY IN THE FEUDAL AGE 


87 


of the Germans. The second of these Saxon kings was Otto I Germany 
(936-973). His first great work was to end forever the barbarian in the 
inroads. The nomad Hungarians (p. 55) once more broke across feudal age 
the eastern border in enormous numbers. Otto crushed them 
with horrible slaughter at the Battle of Lechfeld. The Hunga¬ 
rians never again attacked Christendom. Soon, indeed, they 
themseh es adopted Christianity and settled down in modern 
Hungary as one of the family of European nations. 

Otto followed up his success. Year by year, he forced further Expansion 
back the Slavs from his eastern borders, and established t0 the east 
marks along that whole frontier. On the extreme south¬ 
east was the Eastmark (against the Hungarians), to grow into 
modern Austria, while the Mark of Brandenburg on the north- 
cast (against the Slavs) was to grow into modern Prussia. 

Now, too, began a new colonizing movement which soon extended 


Germany from the Elbe to the Oder and carried swarms of German 
Settlers among even the savage Prussians and the Slavs of the 
heathen Baltic coast. 

It should ha\e been the work of the German kings to False ambi- 
iOstei this defensive colonization along their barbarous eastern tl° n °f the 
borders, and to fuse the Germans themselves into a true nation. 

But Otto and his successors were drawn from this work, so well 
begun, by greedy dreams of wider empire. 

For half a century the Empire in the West had lapsed. Otto otto and 
was tempted to restore it — as a mask for seizing upon Italy. the Holy 
That unhappy land had no shadow of union. Saracens from Empke 962 
Africa contested the south with the Greek Empire and the 
Lombards, and the north was devastated by ferocious wars be¬ 
tween petty states. Otto invaded Italy, and in 962 had himself 
consecrated by the pope at Rome as “Emperor of the Romans.” 

Popes and Emperors soon quarreled. The restored Empire Popes and 
was “ the Holy Roman Empire of the German people .” It did not Em perors 
include all “ Western Europe,” like Charlemagne’s Empire in 
its day. France was outside, as were the new Christian king¬ 
doms in England, Scandinavia, Poland, and Hungary. As a 
physical power it rested wholly on “German” military prowess. 


88 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


And it was “Holy.” It claimed to share the headship of 
Christendom with the papacy, but the relation between Em¬ 
perors and Popes was not defined. Soon they quarreled; and 
then followed three centuries of fatal struggle. 

Ruin to both During these three centuries the history of Germany was hound 
and Italy U P W ^ 1 that of Italy. This connection brought to Germany 
somewhat of the culture and art of the ancient world; but in 
government and industry it spelled ruin. Otto was merely the 
first of a long line of German kings who led splendid German 
armies across the Alps, to melt away in fever beneath the Italian 
sun. German strength was frittered away in foreign squabbles, 
and the chance to make a German nation was lost for nine hun¬ 
dred years. 


The period 
of “ fist- 
law ” in 
Germany 
1254-1273 


No better were the results to Italy. A German king, however 
much a “Roman” Emperor, could enter Italy only with a Ger¬ 
man army at his back. The southern land was a conquered 
province, ruled by uncouth northern barbarians. True, at 
last the Popes won, and expelled the Germans; but only by 
calling in Frenchman and Spaniard, and making Italy for 
centuries more the battle ground and battle prize of Europe. 

In 125If. the last German ruler was driven from Italy. The 
Empire ceased to he either “Holy” or “Roman.” Thereafter it 
was wholly German. And even the German kingdom seemed 
extinct. For twenty years (1254-1273) there was no Emperor, 
and no king, in Germany. This was the period of “Fist- 
law.” Germany dissolved into more than 300 petty states — 
“free cities,” duchies, marks, counties. 


Moham¬ 
medan 
culture 
during 
Europe’s 
“ Dark 
Ages ” 


VII. THE CRUSADES, 1100-1300 

For the last two centuries of the feudal age, all Western 
Europe was deeply moved by one common impulse. To under¬ 
stand this, we must look at conditions outside Europe. 

The Mohammedans (pp. 38-42) still ruled from the Pyre¬ 
nees to the Ganges. They had utilized the old culture of 
Persia and of Greece. Their governments were as good as the 
Oriental world had ever known. Their roads and canals en- 







































































































* 

























, ' 











MOHAMMEDAN CULTURE 


89 



couraged commerce and bound together distant regions. Their 
magnificent cities were built with a peculiar and beautiful 
architecture, characterized by the horseshoe arch, the dome, 
the turret, the graceful minaret, and a rich ornament of 
“arabesque.” Their manufactures were the finest in the 
world, both for beautiful 
design and for delicate 
workmanship. Their glass 
and pottery and metal 
work, their dyestuffs, their 
paper, their cloth manu¬ 
factures, their preparations 
of leather, all represented 
industries almost or wholly 
unknown to the West. 

We still speak of “ Toledo ” 
blades, and “Morocco” 
leather, while “muslins” 
and “ damasks ” recall 
their superior processes at 
Mosul and Damascus. 

Europe was soon to owe to 
them all these products, 
with many other things long- 
forgotten or new, — spices, 
oranges, lemons, rice, sugar 
cane, dates, asparagus, ses¬ 
ame, buckwheat, apricots, 
watermelons, oils, perfumes, 
calicoes, satins, the cross¬ 
bow, the windmill. 

In intellectual lines Arab superiority was no less marked. 
While Europe had only a few monastic schools to light its 
“Dark Ages,” the Arabs had great universities, with libraries 
containing hundreds of thousands of manuscripts. In Persia 
and in Spain they had created a noble literature, both prose 




* 


A Window in the Mosque at Cordova. 
See also p. 40 for Mohammedan 
architecture. 








90 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The sur¬ 
viving 
Greek 
Empire 
in the East 


and poetry. Philosophy, theology, law, rhetoric, were subjects 
of special study. The old Chaldean astrology (a sort of fortune- 
telling by the stars) was becoming true astronomy in the hands 
of the Arabians of Spain. The heavens still keep proof of their 
studies in its thick sprinkling of Arabic names, like Aldebaran, 
while common terms in our texts on astronomy ( azimuth, zenith, 
nadir) bear like testimony. From India the Arabs brought 
the “Arabic” notation, while Europe was still struggling with 
clumsy Roman numerals. Algebra and alchemy (chemistry) are 
Arabic in origin as in name, and spherical trigonometry was 
their creation. And while Europe still treated disease from 

the viewpoint of an Indian 
“Medicine Man,” the 
Saracens had established, 
on Greek foundations, a 
real science of medicine. 



A Byzant (Bezant). — A gold coin issued 
by the emperors at Constantinople in 
the Middle Ages. This coin had a wide 
circulation, especially from the eighth to 
the thirteenth centuries, in the countries 
of western Europe, when, with the ex¬ 
ception of Spain, these lands had no 
gold currency of their own. 

material prosperity it was unexcelled 


Midway in character, 
as in geography, between 
Latin Europe and Moham¬ 
medan Asia, lay the Greek 
Empire, living on for centu¬ 
ries a quiet, orderly life. In 
anywhere in the world, and 


in intellectual activity it was surpassed only by the Saracens. 


It was a civilized state, standing on the defensive against 
barbarian attack, and waging its wars mainly by Norse 
mercenaries. The Emperors were often devoted scholars and 
able authors, as well as great rulers. Constantinople in mag¬ 
nificence and extent and comfort was unapproached by the rude 


towns of Franee and Germany; and its wealth, splendor, and 


comforts, — its paved and lighted streets, its schools and 


theaters, its orderly police system, its hospitals and parks, — 
were all amazing to the few visitors from the West. Such little 
trade as Western Europe possessed was in Greek hands, and 
the Byzant, the coin of Constantinople, was its money standard. 



THE SURVIVING GREEK EMPIRE 


91 



ym'A 


/// ' 


I Mil 

feAillw 


M'/'M, 


TW;. 


09 .O 


•2 ^ 



















































92 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The 

Turkish 
peril in 
the East 


The Greek 
Empire calls 
on the West 
to save it 
from the 
Turk 


In the eleventh century, the civilization of the Saracens 
received a fatal blow, and the existence of the Greek Empire 
was endangered. Political supremacy in the Mohammedan 
World fell to the Turks, a new Tartar people from beyond the 
Jaxartes. The Turks were to play somewhat the same part in 
the Saracenic world that the Teutons had played in the old 
Roman world, with this tremendous difference, that even 
to the present day they have not assimilated civilization. The 

Arab culture survived long enough to 
be transplanted into Europe, but in its 
own home it was doomed to swift decay. 

The Turks were at least mighty 
soldiers, and they began a new era of Mo¬ 
hammedan conquest. Almost at once 
the greater part of the Greek Empire fell 
into their hands. They overran Asia 
Minor, almost to the gates of Con¬ 
stantinople. In terror, the Greek Em¬ 
peror turned to Western Christendom 
for aid; and this appeal was the signal 
for two centuries of war, “Cross” 
Crusader taking the vow. against “Crescent.” 



T r 16 TurkS • Greek call for aid against the 

Christian would have produced little effect, however, if Western 

pilgrims Europe had not had deep grievances of its own against the Turk. 

Pilgrimages to holy shrines were a leading feature of medieval 
life. Good men made them to satisfy religious enthusiasm; 
evil men, to secure forgiveness for crime; sick men, to heal 
bodily ills. A pilgrimage was an act of worship. Chief of 
all pilgrimages, of course, was that to the land where Christ 
had lived and to the tomb where His body had been laid. The 
Saracens had permitted these pilgrimages; but the Turks, 
when they captured Jerusalem from the Arabs, began at once 
The persecute all Christians there. Thus began those movements 

Crusades G f armed p ii gr i ms which we call the Crusades. Each crusader 
marched in part to save Eastern Christians, partly to avenge 




THE CRUSADES 1096-1300 


93 



pilgrims fi om the \\ est; and partly to make his own pilgrimage 
to the holiest of shrines. Mingled with these motives, too, 

was the spirit of adventure and the greed for gain in land 
or gold. 

From 1096 to almost 1300 there was constant fighting in the 
East between Christian and Mohammedan . Europe, which in 

the ninth century had been helpless against plundering heathen 
bands, had now grown 
strong enough to pour 
into Asia for two hundred 
years a ceaseless stream 
of mailed knights, with 
countless followers. 

For almost the first half 
of that period the Chris¬ 
tians did hold all or most 
of the Holy Land, broken 
into various “Latin” prin¬ 
cipalities, and defended 
against the reviving Mo¬ 
hammedan power by 
“Orders” of fighting 
monks — the Templars, 
the Knights of St. John, 
and the Teutonic Order. 

At the end, the Mohamme¬ 
dans had expelled Europe 
wholly from Asia. 

This was mainly because 

Europe had outgrown the crusading movement. The Crusades crusades 
themselves had created a new Europe. Trade had grown, and 
society was no longer so exclusively made up of fighters. The 
indirect results of the Crusades were vastly more important 
than the recovery of Palestine would have been. New energies Intellectual 
were awakened; new worlds of thought opened. The intel- results 
lectual horizon widened. The crusaders brought back new gains 


Effigies of Knights Templar, from 
funeral slabs in the Temple Church, 

London. The crossing of the legs in a 
funeral sculpture indicated a crusader . 

Importance 






94 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


Growth of 
commerce 


Feudalism 

undermined 


The towns 
and the 
feudal lords 


in science, art, architecture, medical skill; and Europe had learned 
that there was more still to learn. 

Many oriental products (p. 89) became almost necessaries 
of life. Some of them were soon grown or manufactured in 
Europe. Others, like spices, could not be produced there; and, 
in consequence, commerce with distant parts of Asia grew 
enormously. In the absence of fresh meat in winter and of our 
modern root-foods (p. 68), spices became of immense importance 
for the table. For a time, Venice and Genoa, assisted by their 
favorable positions, monopolized much of the new carrying 
trade; but all the ports of Western Europe were more or less 
affected. This commercial activity called for quicker meth¬ 
ods of reckoning, and so Europe adopted the Arabic numer¬ 
als. Money replaced barter . Bankers appeared, alongside the 
old Jew money-lenders; and coinage increased swiftly. 

All this undermined both the economic and the military 
basis of feudalism. Money made it unnecessary for the tenant 
to pay rent in service, and enabled the kings to collect “taxes,” 
so as to maintain standing armies. Moreover the Crusades 
swept away the old feudal nobility directly. Hundreds of 
thousands of barons and knights squandered their possessions 
in preparing for the expedition, and then left their bones in 
Palestine. The ground was cleared for the rising city democ¬ 
racies and the new monarchies. 

And these two new forces at first were allies. The “third 
estate v anted order, and the kings could help secure it 
The kings wanted money, and the third estate could supply 
it. Kings and towns joined hands to reduce feudalism to a 
form. True, a new nobility grew up — but it had only the 
honors of the old, without its power. 

VIII. RISE OF THE TOWNS, 1100-1300 

From 500 to 1100 a.d. the three figures in European life had 
been the tonsured priest, the mailed horseman, and the field 
laborer, stunted and bent. In the twelfth century , alongside 
priest, noble, and peasant there stood out a fourth figure —- the 


RISE OF TOWNS 1100-1300 


95 



sturdy, resolute, self-confident burgher. The age of the Crusades 
Vvas also the age of the rise of towns. 

Feudalism and the towns were foes by nature. Feudalism 
had grown out of war, and lived to fight. The new towns could 
fight stubbornly, when forced to fight; but they grew out of 
trade and lived for industry, and they shut out the robber- 
knights by walls and guards. 

In Italy and southern France, some old Roman towns had 
lived along, with shrunken population, subject to neighboring 


Siege of a Medieval Town : the summons to surrender. — From a six¬ 
teenth-century copper engraving. 

lords. Under the new commercial conditions after 1200, these 
districts became dotted once more with self-governing cities, 
with municipal institutions molded, in part at least, upon those 
brought down from Roman times. Elsewhere the towns were 
mainly new growths — from peasant villages. Most were 
small. Very few had more than four or five thousand people. 

At first each inhabitant of a growing town remained directly 
dependent upon the town’s feudal lord. The first advance toward 
freedom was to change this individual dependence into collective 


Origin of 
the towns 


Town 
charters 
won in two 
centuries of 
revolt 





































Town life 
in the 
feudal age 


4 


90 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

dependence. The town demanded the right to have its elected 
officers bargain with the lord as to services and dues, to be paid 
by the whole town, not by individual citizens; and after “ two 
centuries of revolt” (1100-1300), by stubborn heroism and by 

wise use of their wealth, they had won charters guaranteeing 
this and greater privileges. 



The Medieval Town Hall of Oudenarde, Belgium. 


Town life showed new wants, new comforts, new occupations. 

atehed hovels, with dirt floors, gave way to comfortable 

and even stately, burghers’ homes. Universal misery and 

squalor among the industrial classes were replaced, for a large 

part of the population, by happy comfort. There followed a 

lavish expenditure for town halls and cathedrals and for civic 
leasts and shows. 







THE MEDIEVAL TOWN 


97 


Still, the medieval European city fell far behind the ancient 
Roman city or the contemporary Arabian city. There were 
no street lights at night, no city water supply, no sewerage, no 
street-cleaning, no paving. The necessity of inclosing the town 
within lofty stone walls crowded it into small space, so that 
streets were always narrow and dark. Dead animals rotted in 
these streets; loose swine or pigsties obstructed them; and on 
one occasion in the fifteenth century a German Emperor, warmly 
welcomed in a loyal city, was almost swallowed up, horse and 
rider, in the bottomless filth. Within doors, too, the material 
prosperity was not for all. Says Dr. Jessopp, “The sediment 
of the town population was a dense slough of stagnant misery, 
squalor, famine, loathsome disease, and dull despair.” 

There was no adequate police system, and street fights were 
constant. At night, no well-to-do citizen stirred abroad without 
his armor and his guard of stout apprentice lads; and he had to 
fortify and guard his house at all times. The citizen, however 
safe from feudal tyranny, lived in bondage to countless necessary 
but annoying town regulations. When “curfew” rang, he must 
“cover his fire” and put out lights — a precaution against con¬ 
flagration particularly necessary because of the crowded narrow 
streets, the flimsy houses, and the absence of fire companies 
and of adequate water. His clothing, and his wife’s, must be 
no richer than that prescribed for their particular station. He 
must serve his turn as “watch” in belfry tower, on the walls, 
or in the streets at night. And in his daily labor he must work 
and buy and sell only according to the minute regulations of 
his gild. 

The gild was an institution of old Roman times, modified 
by medieval conditions. All the skilled laborers of one trade, 
in one place, made up a gild, — bakers’ gild, goldsmiths’ gild, 
and so on. The gild was a social organization, and a 
mutual insurance society; and it also minutely regulated 
the work of its members so as to give each member an 
equal chance and to maintain a high standard of work. 


BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 



Old Street in Rouen, present condition. The Cathedral is visible at f 

TT? ° f u he Street int0 the s d u "e. Probably the appe™auce of t] 
street has changed little since the fourteenth century. 

















































































THE MEDIEVAL TOWN 99 

The townsmen, from rich merchant down through skilled 
artisan, were a “third estate” in government, alongside clergy 
and nobles. They were not as yet “the people.” They were 
only one more “class risen from the unreckoned mass; and 
they looked down upon unskilled workmen and farm peasants 
with contempt as bigoted and cruel 
as that felt for the burghers by the 
classes above them. 

For a time it seemed that Europe 
might be dominated by city leagues, 
like ancient Greece. More than 
once, leagues of cities, like the 
Hanseatic League of north Ger¬ 
many, fought with the mightiest 
kings, and won. But in Italy by 
1350 nearly every city had fallen 
under the rule of tyrants; in 
France, they were brought com¬ 
pletely under the growing despotic 
authority of the king; in Germany, 
the many “free cities” became 
only one element in the general 
political chaos (p. 88); and in 
England they never possessed that 
extreme independence of the cen¬ 
tral government which for a time 
they secured in other lands. The more advanced countries of 
Europe moved on toward a national life, in which city life was 
soon absorbed. 

IX. LEARNING AND ART IN THE FEUDAL AGE 

The “Dark Ages” (500 to 1100) saw a gleam of promise 
in Charlemagne’s day, and some remarkable English and Irish 
schools flourished just before Charlemagne, and again in the 
day of Alfred. But these were mere points of light in a vast 
gloom. As a whole, for six hundred years the only schools were 



Torture by Water, a method 
used in medieval towns, on the 
continent, in their bitter class 
strife. This particular form 
of torture to compel confession 
survived to recent times in the 
Spanish Philippines, and was 
adopted by American soldiers 
there in the barbarous warfare 
with the natives. 


A “ third 
estate ” 


Leagues 
of cities 


Few schools 
in the 
Dark Ages 


















100 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


those connected with monasteries and cathedrals; and these 
were unspeakably poor — and aimed only to fit for the duties 
of the clergy. 

Rise Of the About 1100, Europe began to stir from this intellectual torpor, 
universities o £ ^ 

if ter noo oome ot the new towns set up trades schools, with instruction 

in the language of the people, instead of in Latin, to fit educa¬ 
tion to the needs of everyday life. In leading cities, in France, 
Italy, and England, the medieval university appeared, with 
extended courses in “arts” and with other specialties for 
advanced study, like theology at Paris, medicine at Naples, 
Roman law at Bologna. By 1400, fifty universities dotted 
Europe, some of them with many thousand students. A fifth 
figure came into European life: alongside peasant, knight, priest, 
townsman, there moved now in cap and gown the lay student or 

learned “doctor,” the forerunner of the modern “professional 
man.” 

universities universities did not make good their first promise, 

ruled by The University of Paris, the first medieval university, had grown 

n^by° n UP ab ° Ut a great teacller > Abelard, Abelard was a fearless 

reason seeker after truth. Alone among the scholars of his age, 

he dared to call “reason” the test of truth, even in the 
matter of church doctrines. But the church condemned this 
heresy, and forced the rising universities to forswear “reason” 
for authority .” This stifled all inquiry. Some garbled 

fragments of Greek science had been recovered, through 
Aiabian translations from the Greek Aristotle, and soon came 
to be. looked upon with superstitious reverence. For two 
centuries, “Thus saith Aristotle” was as final in science as 
“Thus saith the church” in religion. When the intellectual 
rebirth of Europe finally came, after those two centuries, it came 
from outside university walls. 

The School- The method of reasoning used in the universities is called 
scholasticism. It was like the reasoning we use in geometry, 

— deducing a truth from given premises or axioms. This 
method ignores observation and experiment and investigation, 
and has no value, by itself, except in mathematics. It has 


THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITIES 


101 



never discovered a truth in nature or in man. The men of the 
universities (Schoolmen) did not use it in mathematics. They 
tried to use it by turning in upon their own minds, and their 
arguments were mainly quibbles upon verbal distinctions. Much 
time they spent in playing with such questions as, How many 
spirits can dance at one time upon the point of a needle? 

The last of the famous Schoolmen was Duns the Scot, who 
died in 1308. In that day there was no higher praise for a 


Interior of Hall of Merchant Princes at Dantzig. Originally a Hall 
of the Teutonic Knights (about 1300). — From Lubke. 

young scholar than to call him “a Duns.” Before many years, 
when a new scientific method had come in (p. 178), the term 
came to be our “ dunce. ” 

A very little “science” crept into Europe by 1200 from the 
Arabs, mainly in astronomy and chemistry. But the astronomy 
was mostly astrology (p. 90). And chemistry (alchemy) was 
little more than a search for the “ philosopher’s stone, ” which 
should change common metals into gold, or for the “ elixir of 
life,” a drink to make a man immortal. Both astrologers and 


Medieval 

science 











102 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 



Salisbury Cathedral, from the northwest; one of the finest examnles 
Enghsh Gothro; built 1200-1250. The spire rises 404 feet from t 


























ROGER BACON, SEEKER FOR TRUTH 


103 


alchemists mingled their studies with magic incantations and 
w r ere generally believed to have sold their souls to the Devil 
in return for forbidden knowledge. 

No doubt there were many men, whose names we have never 
heard, who were trying through those weary centuries really 
to study into the secrets of nature in a scientific way, by experi¬ 
ment. The greatest man of this kind before 1300 was Roger 
Bacon, an English Franciscan. While the useless Duns Scotus 



Salisbury Cloisters, from outside the court, showing only the roof of the 

Cathedral above them. 


was admired and courted by all the world, Roger Bacon was 
living in loneliness and poverty, noticed only to be persecuted 
or reviled. He spent his life in trying to point out the lacks 
of the Schoolmen’s method and to teach true scientific principles. 
Fourteen years he wasted in dungeons, for his opinions. When 
at liberty, he worked devotedly, but under heavy handicaps. 
More than once he sought all over Europe for a copy of some 
book he needed — when a modern scholar in like case would 


A fore¬ 
runner 
of true 
science 















Literature 
in the 
speech of 
the people 
after 1200 


Art in the 

Middle 

Ages 


104 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

need only to send a note to the nearest bookseller. He wrote 
upon the possibility of reaching Asia by sailing west into the 
Atlantic. He learned much about explosives, and is said 
to have invented gunpowder. It is believed, too, that he 
used lenses as a telescope. Apparently he foresaw the possibil¬ 
ity of using steam as a motive power. Certainly he prophesied 
that in time wagons and ships would move “with incredible 
speed” without horses or sails, and also that man would learn to 
sail the air. His “Great Work” was a cyclopedia of the knowl¬ 
edge of his time in geography, mathematics, music, and physics. 
But Roger Bacon lived a century too soon for his own good, 
and found no successful disciples. 

Latin, a mongrel Latin, too, was the sole language of the 
university and of learning; and until 1200, except for the songs 
of wandering minstrels, it was practically the only language of 
any kind of literature. About that time, however, in various 
lands popular poetry of a high order began to appear in the language 
of everyday speech: the Song of the Cid in Spanish; the love 
songs of the Troubadours in French and of the Minnesingers 
in German; the Divine Comedy of Dante in Italian; and, toward 
1400, the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer in New English, with 
Wyclif’s translation of the Bible into the same tongue. 

Classical art was lost, through the Dark Ages, as completely 
as classical learning. Medieval painting existed onlv in rude 
altar pieces, representing stiff saints and Madonn'as, where 
even the flowing draperies could not hide the artist’s ignorance 
of how to draw the human body. On a minute scale, to be 
sure, there was some better work. Monks “illuminated” 

missals with tiny brushes in brilliant colors, and sometimes 
with beauty and delicacy. 

Architecture, too, was rude until after 1100. But, in the twelfth 
and thirteenth centuries, the heavy Romanesque style gave wav 
to a new French style called the Gothic, and the world gained one 
of its wonders in the Gothic cathedral - “a religious aspiration 


SIXTH PERIOD 


THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, 1300-1520 


I. ENGLAND AND FRANCE 

We left the story of England with the great Edward who had 
the wisdom to adopt and perfect the Parliament of the rebel 
Simon. In 1327 Parliament deposed the weak second Edward. 
Then the third Edward began the Hundred Years’ War with 




English Lady on Horseback. — 
From a fourteenth-century manu¬ 
script in the British Museum. 


1 2 3 
French Dress in the Fourteenth 
Century: 1 . Middle class; 2. 
Lower class; 3. Noble lady. 


France (1338 1453). On the surface, this war was a struggle 
between kings for prestige and territory: but at bottom 
it was a commercial struggle. Every country, in that day, 
shackled foreign merchants with absurd restrictions and ruinous 
tolls. England wanted to sell her wool freely in Flemish towns 
and to buy Bordeaux wines freely in the south of France; and 

105 


The 

Hundred 
Years’ War 
( 1338 - 1453 ) 















106 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


France 

ravaged 


the easiest way to get access to these markets seemed to be to 
conquer France. 

The war was waged on French soil. The English won bril¬ 
liant victories, overran France repeatedly, ravaging crops, 
burning peasant villages, turning the country into a black¬ 
ened deseit in the usual fashion of warfare in those chivalrous 


Battle of 
Crecy, 1346 


The Black 
Death 



ciays, and bringing home 
much plunder — robes, 
furs, feather beds, kitchen 
utensils, some rich plate, 
and some coin from the 
ransom of “noble” pris¬ 
oners. The whole century 
of horrible and meaning¬ 
less slaughter had just one 
gleam of promise for the 
future world. This was 
given by the Battle of 
Crecy. An English army 

A Bombard. — From a sixteenth-century was trapped apparently 

German woodcut. An old chronicler tells by five times their nnm 
us that at Crecy the English had some , " _ nCS tllC1 nUm “ 

small “bombards,” which, with fire and ber - But the English 

noise like God’s thunder, threw little iron 
balls to frighten the horses. These first 
cannon were made by fastening bars of 
iron together with hoops ; and the pow¬ 
der was very weak. A century later XXWXXi 

they began to be used to batter down g ra y-gOOSe wings — coolly 

castles and city walls It was longer still faced the ponderous mas« 
before firearms replaced the bow for „ ^ punucious mass 

infantry. . of French knights, re¬ 

pulsed charge after charge 
o t at gallantest chivalry of Europe, and won back for the 

woild the long-lost equality of the footman with the feudal 
horseman in war (1346). 

For a time, toward 1400, the war languished because pestilence 
was slaying men faster than steel could. The Black Death, most 
famous of famous plagues, had been devastating the conti¬ 
nent for years, moving west from Asia. At least a third of 


yeomen — men of the six- 
foot bow and yard-long 
shafts feathered from 













WYCLIF AND THE LOLLARDS 


107 


the population of Europe was carried off by it. Then, in the 
year after Crecy, the returned victors brought it to England, 
where, almost at a blow, it swept away half the nation. 

This loss fell most heavily of course upon the working classes, And the 
but it helped those left alive to rise out of serfdom, — a move- decay of 
ment already well under way there. The lack of labor doubled England 
wages, too, and so brought in 
a higher standard of living. 

True, Parliament tried, in 
the interest of the landlords, 
to keep down the laborers by 
foolish and tyrannical laws, — 
forbidding them to leave the 
parish where they lived or to 
take more w T ages than had been 
customary in the past, and 
ordering them under cruel 
penalties to serve any one 
who offered them such wages. 

There were many individual 
cases, too, of bitter tyranny, 
where some lord, by legal 
trickery or by outright violence, forced half-freed villeins back 
into serfdom. Thus among the peasants there was long smolder¬ 
ing a fierce and just discontent. 

Another set of causes fanned this discontent into flame. The 
huge wealth of the church and the worldliness of the greater clergy 
were becoming a common scandal. Even the gentle Chaucer 
(p. 104), court poet though he was, wrote in keen raillery of these 
faults. More serious and less happy men could not dismiss 
them with a jest. The priest, John Wyclif, a famous lecturer Wyclif and 
at the University of Oxford, preached vigorously against such 5^ lards 
abuses, and finally attacked even some central teachings of 
the church. He denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, 1 

1 That at the Mass the bread and wine were changed miraculously into 
the very flesh and blood of Christ. 















108 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The 

Peasant 
Rising 
of 1381 


and insisted that even ignorant men might know the will of 
God, through the Bible, without priestly intervention. Accord¬ 
ingly, with his companions, he made the first complete transla¬ 
tion of the Bible into English; and his disciples wrote out many 
copies (printing was still a century in the future) and distrib¬ 
uted them throughout the land. 

These disciples called themselves “poor preachers.” Their 
enemies called them “Lollards” (babblers). Some of them 
exaggerated their master’s teachings against wealth, and called 
for the abolition of all rank and property. John Ball, one of these 
mad preachers, attacked the privileges of the gentry in rude 
rhymes that rang through England from shore to shore, — 


“When Adam delved and Eve span, 
Who was then the gentleman?” 


This priest, ’ says Froissart, a contemporary chronicler, “ used often¬ 
times to go and preach when the people in the villages were coming out 
rom mass; and he would make them gather about him, and would say 
thus: Good people, things go not well in England, nor will, till every¬ 
thing be in common and there no more be villeins and gentlemen. By 
what right are they whom we call lords greater folk than we ? We be all 
come from one father and one mother, Adam and Eve, ... but they 
are clothed in velvet and are warm in their furs, while we shiver in rags * 
they have wine, and spices, and fair bread . and we> oat cake and ^ ’ 

and water to drink; they dwell in fine houses, and we have the pain and 
ravail the rain and the wind in the fields. From our labor they keep 
their state. Yet we are their bondmen; and unless we serve them 
readily, we are beaten.’ And so the people would murmur one with 

t e othei m the fields, and in the ways as they met together, affirming 
that John Ball spoke truth.” 


In 1377 Edward’s grandson, Richard II, came to the throne 
as a mere boy; and, while the government was in confusion, 
and England in this seething discontent, Parliament passed a 
heavy poll tax, bearing unfairly upon the poor. This match 
set the realm ablaze in the “Peasant Rising of 1381 ” With 
amazing suddenness, from all sides, the peasants, rudely armed, 

marched upon London; and in a few days the king and kingdom 
were m their hands. 


THE REVOLT OF THE PEASANTS 109 

The special demand of the peasantry was that all labor-rents 
should be changed into fixed money rents. They sacked some 
castles and manor houses, destroying the “manor rolls,” the 
written evidence of services due on the estate; and they put to 
death a few nobles and their lawyer tools. Women and children 
were nowhere injured, and there was no attempt at general 
pillage and massacre, such as usually go with servile insurrec¬ 
tions in other lands. The revolt was marked by the moderation 
of men who had a reasonable 'program of reform. 



An English Carriage of the Fourteenth Century. — After Jusserand’s 
English Wayfaring Life; from a fourteenth-century psalter. This 
carriage is represented as drawn by five horses tandem, driven by two 
postilions. Such a carriage was a princely luxury, equaling in value a 
herd of from four hundred to sixteen hundred oxen. 

Unhappily the peasants lacked organization. Their chief Wat 
leader, Wat the Tyler, was murdered treacherously, in a con- the Tyler 
ference “under a flag of truce,” as we would say. “Kill!” 
shouted Wat’s followers; “they have murdered our captain!” 

But the young Richard rode forward fearlessly to their front. 

“ What need ye, my masters !” he called; “ I am your king and 
captain.” “We will that you free us forever,” shouted the 
peasant army, “ us and our lands; and that we be never more 
named serfs.” “I grant it,” replied the boy; and by such 
pledges and by promise of free pardon he persuaded them to go 
home. For days a force of thirty clerks was kept busy writing 
out brief charters containing the king’s promises. 

But when the peasants had scattered to their villages, bear- 





























110 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

\ 

The upper- ing to each one a copy of the king’s treacherous charter, the 
treachery property classes rallied and took a bloody vengeance. Parlia- 
and revenge ment declared, indeed, that Richard’s promise was void, because 
he could not give away the gentry’s property — the services 
due them — without their consent. Richard caught gladly at 
this excuse. Quite willing to dishonor his word to mere villeins, 
he marched triumphantly through England at the head of forty 



A Fourteenth-Century Bridge in Rural England, near Danby. — 
From Jusserand’s English Wayfaring Life. 


thousand men, stamping out all hope of another rising by ruth¬ 
less execution of old leaders. Seven thousand men were put 
to death in cold blood. The men of Essex met him with copies 
of his charters, declaring that they were free Englishmen. 

“ Villeins you were,” answered Richard, “and villeins you are. 

In bondage you shall abide; and not your old bondage, but a • 
worse.” 

History has preserved a splendid story of one of the martyred 
heroes. Early in the rising, the peasants of St. Albans (in 



















ENGLISH SERFDOM GONE 


111 


Essex) had wrung charters from the monastery which had 
previously owned their town — in so legal a way that now even 
the royal courts could not ignore them. The leader of the St. 
Albans’ villagers, Grindecobbe, was now condemned to death, 
however, for his part in the rising, and was then offered his life 
if he would persuade his townsmen to give up the charters. 
Grindecobbe turned to his fellows only to bid them take no 
thought for him but to hold firm their rights. “ I shall die for 
the freedom we have won, counting myself happy to end my life 

by such a martyrdom. Do then as if I had been killed in battle 
yesterday.” 

Such steadfastness was not in vain. Soon the movement 
toward the emancipation of villeins began again with fresh force; 
and, by 11^50, villeinage had passed away f rom England forever. 

The growth of Parliament during the Hundred Years’ War 
was almost as important as the rise of the peasants out of bond¬ 
age. Constant war made it necessary for Edward III and 
his successors to ask for many grants of money. Parliament 
supplied the king generously; but it took advantage of his needs 
to secure new powers. 

(1) It established the principle that the king must give his 
assent to Parliament s most important desires before it granted 
the supplies he wanted. (2) In the closing years of Edward 
III the Good Parliament (13/6) “ impeached” and removed 
his ministers, using the forms that have been common in im¬ 
peachments ever since in English-speaking countries. And 
(3) when Richard II tried to overawe Parliament with his soldiery, 
England rose against him, and the Parliament of 1399 deposed 
him, electing a cousin (Henry of Lancaster) in his place. (4) In 
the first quarter of the fifteenth century, under the Lancas¬ 
trian Henrys (IV, V, VI), the House of Commons made good 
its claims that all money bills must originate with it, and 

(5) secured the right to judge of the election of its own members. 

(6) Parliament repeatedly compelled the king to dismiss his 
ministers and appoint new ones satisfactory to it, and (7) sev- 


The peasant 
cause wins 


Growth of 
Parlia¬ 
ment’s 
power 


112 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


eral times fixed the succession to the throne. (8) Freedom of 
speech in Parliament and freedom from arrest, except by the 
order of Parliament itself, became recognized privileges of all 
members. 

Thus under the Lancastrians there was established in the 
breasts of the English middle classes a proud consciousness of 
English liberty as a precious inheritance. With right they 
believed it superior to that possessed by any other people of the 



The Good Parliament of 1399, which deposed Richard II. — From a 
contemporary manuscript. Some of the faces are probably portraits. 


time. Wrote Sir John Fortescue, Chief Justice under Henry VI, 

in his In Praise of the Laws of England, for the instruction of 
Henry’s son: — 

A king of England at his pleasure cannot make any alteration in the 
laws of the land without the consent of his subjects, nor burden them 
agamst their wills with strange impositions. . . . Rejoice, therefore, 
my good Prince, that such is the law of the kingdom you are to inherit, 
because it will afford both to you and to your subjects the greatest 
secuiity and satisfaction. . . . [The king] is appointed to protect his 
subjects in their lives, properties, and laws. For this end he has the 

delegation of power from the people, and he has no just claims to any other 
power.” 




THE TUDOR MONARCHS 


113 



# Then came the minous Wars of the Roses in England. This 
civil war was not, despite Shakspere’s pictures of it, merely 
a struggle foi power between rival lords: in large measure, it 
was the final battle between the old feudal spirit, strong in the 
north of England, and the towns, strong in the south. The 
towns won. The remnants of the old nobility were swept away 


A Medieval Battle. — From a sixteenth- 
century woodcut. 

—and only to use it as a tool. But the occasional meetings, 
and the way in which the kings seemed to rule through it, 
saved the forms of constitutional government. At a later 
time, we shall see, life was again breathed into those forms. 
Then it became plain that, in crushing the feudal forces, 
the New Monarchy had paved the way for a parliamentary 
government more complete than men had dreamed of in earlier 
times. 


in battle or by the heads¬ 
man’s ax. But the middle 
classes were not yet ready 
to grasp the government, 
and the fruits of victory fell 
for a time to the new Tudor 
monarchs, Henry VII and 
Henry VIII. These rulers 
were more absolute than 
any preceding English 
kings. England entered 
the modern period under 
a “New Monarchy.” 

Still these Tudors were not 
“ divine-right ’ ’ monarchs; 
and they were shrewd 
enough to cloak their 
power under the old con¬ 
stitutional forms — and so 
did not challenge popular 
opposition. True they 
called Parliament rarely 


The Wars 
of the 
Roses, 
1454-1471 


The “ New 
Monarchy ” 
of the 
Tudors 


The forms 
of free 
government 
saved 



















114 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


French 

monarchy 

strength¬ 

ened 


France came out of the Hundred Years’ War, after unspeakable 
suffering among the poor and after vast destruction of property, 
with territory consolidated, with a new patriotism binding her 
people into one (a patriotism that had blossomed in Joan of 



Joan of Arc at the Relief of Orleans 

painting. 


I rom a modern imaginative 


Arc, the peasant girl liberator of her country), and with her 
kings stronger than ever. Her industrious peasantry, not for 
the last time, amazed Europe by their rapid restoration of 
prosperity in a wasted land. Louis XI (1461-1483) kept a small 
ut efficient standing army, with a train of artillery that could 
easily batter the castle of any feudal rebel about his ears. Louis 















THE PAPACY TOWARD 1500 


115 


left France the richest, most orderly, and most united country on 
the continent. Under Francis I (1515-1547 ), France plainly 
had stepped into the first place in Europe — among single states 
— with only the widely scattered, conglomerate Hapsburg 
power to challenge her supremacy. 

II. THE PAPACY AT THE END OF THE MIDDLE AGES 

The thirteenth-century struggle between popes and emperors Struggle 
(p. 88) had left the popes victors. But at once England * n En s land 
and France challenged that papal overlordship. Neither the^gov* 1 
country questioned the pope’s authority in religious matters; e ™ m J; nt 

but they did demand that he should not interfere with govern- pope 1 6 
ment. 

The. conflict was hastened by the Hundred Years’ War. 

The kings needed money, and w T ere trying to introduce sys¬ 
tems of national taxation in place of the unsatisfactory feudal 
revenues. The clergy had been exempt from feudal serv¬ 
ices; but they owned so much of the wealth of the two 
countries that the kings insisted upon their paying their share 
of the new taxes. Pope Boniface VIII (1296) issued a bull 
forbidding any prince to impose taxes on the clergy without 
papal consent, and threatening excommunication against all 
clergy who paid. 

But when the English clergy, trusting in this papal decree, 
refused to pay taxes, Edward I outlawed them. To outlaw 
a man was to put him outside the protection of the law: he 
could not bring suit to recover property or damages, and offenses 
against him were not “ crimes.” It became plain at once 
that, in comparison with this practical “ excommunication ” by 
the state, the old clerical excommunication was stage thunder. 

The clergy submitted. 

France was the scene of a sharper contest. As it progressed, The conflict 
Pope Boniface set forth the old claims of papal supremacy over in France 
princes. “ Whoever resists this power,” said one of his bulls, 

“ resists the ordination of God . . . Indeed we declare 
that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human 


116 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


“ The 
Babylonian 
Captivity ” 


Rival 
“ popes ” 


creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” Philip treated 
these claims with contempt, and the Estates General (1302), 
even the clerical Estate, denied the pope any control over the 
state, and pledged their lives to defend the “ ancient liberties 
of the French nation.” Philip forbade the payment of any 
revenues from his realm to the pope, and arrested the papal 
legate. Boniface threatened to depose the king. A few days 
later, a company of French soldiers made Boniface prisoner; 

and the chagrin of the old man at the insult probably hastened 
his death (1303). 

Philip then secured the election of a French pope, w T ho removed 
the papal capital from Rome to Avignon, in southern France. 
Here the popes remained for seventy years (1309-1377), in 
“the Babylonian Captivity of the church.” 


Of course the 'papacy lost public respect. It was no longer 

an impartial umpire. Politically it had sunk into a mere tool 
of the French kings, and the enemies of France could not be 
expected to show it reverence. In Italy, too, the Papal States 
themselves fell into anarchy, and there was danger that the 
popes might lose that principality. 


In 1377, to save the papal territory, Gregory XI visited 
Rome. This act brought on a greater disaster even than the 
exile itself. Gregory died while at Rome. The cardinals were 
obliged at once to choose a successor. They were Frenchmen 
(as all high church offices had been given to Frenchmen during 
the scandal of the Captivity); but even French cardinals did 
not dare disregard the savage demands of the people of Rome 
for an Italian pope, and so chose Urban VI. Urban estab¬ 
lished himself in the old papal seat at Rome; but, a few 
months later, the cardinals assembled again, declared that 
the choice of Urban was void because made under compulsion 
and elected a French pope, Clement VII, who promptly re¬ 
turned to Avignon. 


Urban and Clement excommunicated each other, each devot¬ 
ing to the devil all the supporters of the other. Which pope 
should good Christians obey? The answer was determined 


LOLLARDS AND HUSSITES 


117 


mainly by political considerations. France obeyed Clement; 
England and Germany obeyed Urban. Two such heads for 
Christendom were worse than no head at all. 

This sad condition of the papacy brought with it danger to 
the church itself. The Wyclif movement in England (p. 107) 
took place toward the close of the exile at Avignon. The 
church declared Wyclif a heretic; but he was protected during 
his life by one of King Edward’s sons. Soon after Wyclif’s 
death, however, the Lancastrian monarchs began to persecute 
his followers. In 1401, for the first time, an Englishman was 
burned for heresy, and the Lollards finally disappeared. But 
meantime, the seeds of the heresy had been scattered in a 
distant part of Europe. Richard II of England married a prin¬ 
cess of Bohemia, and some of her attendants carried the teach¬ 
ings of Wyclif to the Bohemian University of Prague. About 
1400, John Hus, a professor at Prague, became a leader in 
a radical “reform” much after Wyclif’s example, and the 
movement spread rapidly over much of Bohemia. 

Great and good men everywhere, especially in the powerful 
universities, began now to call for a General Council as the only 
means to restore unity of church government and doctrine; and 
finally one of the popes called the Council of Constance (1414). 
Five thousand delegates were present, representing all Chris¬ 
tendom. With recesses, the Council sat for four years. It 
induced one pope to resign his office, and it deposed the other 
claimants. Then it restored unity by electing a new pope, 
Martin V, to rule from Rome. 

Next the Council turned its attention to restoring church 
doctrine. John Hus was present, under a “safe conduct” 
from the Emperor. His teachings were declared heresy; but 
neither persuasion nor threats could move him to recant. “ It 
is better for me to die,” he said, “than to fall into the hands 
of the Lord by deserting the truth.” Despite the Emperor’s 
solemn pledge for his safety, Hus was burned at the stake, 
and his ashes were scattered in the Rhine (1415). Then Wyclif’s 
doctrines, too, were condemned; and, to make thorough work, 


The 

Lollard 

heresy 


The Hussite 
heresy 


The Council 
of Con¬ 
stance, 1414 


118 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


The last 
popes of 
the Middle 
Ages 


Germany 
and the 
Hapsburgs 


his ashes were disinterred from their resting place and scattered 
on the river Swift. 

The Council was made up of earnest reformers, — good men 
for their age, - who believed that in this work they were serving 
God and saving the souls of future generations of men from 
eternal torment. But their vigorous measures did not wholly 
succeed. Hus became a national hero to Bohemia. That coun¬ 
try rose in arms against the church. A crusade was preached 
against the heretics, and years of cruel war followed; but some 
survivals of Hussite teachings lasted on into the period of the 
Reformation a century later. 

The 'papacy never regained its earlier authority over kings. 
Nicholas V (1447) showed himself a learned scholar, eager to 
advance learning, as well as a pure and gentle man. Pius II 
(1455) strove to arouse a new crusade against the Turks, who 
had at last captured Constantinople; but his complete failure 
proved (in his own words) that Europe “ looked on pope and 
emperor alike as names in a story.” Some of the succeeding 
popes, like the notorious Borgia (Alexander VI, 1492-1503), 
were busied mainly as Italian princes, building up their temporal 
principality by intrigue and craft such as was common at that 
day in Italian politics. 


III. OTHER STATES, 1300-1520 

The “Holy Roman Empire;’ it has been explained (p. 88), 
had come to mean merely Germany. The anarchy of the 
“Fist-law” period was checked in 1273 by the election of 
Rudolph of Hapsburg as Emperor. Rudolph was a petty 
count of a rude district in the Alps (“ Hawks’ nest ”), and the 
princes had chosen him because they thought him too weak to 
rule them. The king of Bohemia, indeed, refused to recognize 
him as Emperor. Rudolph attacked Bohemia, and seized 
from it the duchy of Austria, which, until just now, has remained 
the chief seat of the Hapsburgs. In other ways he showed the 
now-familiar Hapsburg zeal to widen his personal domain. 


t r 

GERMANY 

ABOUT 1350 

SCALE OF MILES 



fiFra 

^arlin^o Le ° e | arden \ 

i Friesla 

o 


East 

riesland s,v.; 

mden J ■'Mint' 

.©ldsnburgt r> 

tier lee"'"''' 


ilaarlei 


ague 


■Amiens 



oGuine- 

Ar'tois 





A?c, 


\n r / C ft 

xKeorordeA^ 

n, • 

- 1 

<gr Cdmity/! 

A BeRtffi' 

VJ /_ ^ 

^Deventer / ") A' 1 ' 

( > ^utphen/-'^' i * 

'^nd/ 



<J)uchy o'f Sebwerin- 
-Xahenburg 




E e IllelTp X’urebnrg 

Duchy of 


ACountji i 
' iD'ipkenburgP I 
pholip Hoyal’i f 

J ’ g. 


JRottenburg^, 
reiucn a 

pY^en 
Bishopric) 

L 


Brunswick 


.. T, 

uneburg > x 

Celle 


r\.Hanover 



enb^. 


R.u 


/ uty j ; • / 

Tackle iburg-—Oy v O 


• & 


..® 

Minister 


""■ tftvensbef'g ( - ;oui jfry^ 


■ >-A 


.Lippe- 


''.Brunswick \ ' l -'*j(trC 
Jh°pWc .2 ..agd/bu 

Welfenbuttel » s Gk C' 
iesheim ° e <S' l Milgcleburg V ' ' 


—JBrunsi 


iC& ’. q) Halbertstadi 


1 * f M i,t 11 e m a r 

'Zerbst *- i » 

vEubben. 


O (Bruns. 


Goslar 


» Dessau 


Wesel Dorti__ 

,'C till n tyi s *' . 

irnbu v Duchy {©>/ 

, ^ 0 .- -> 


- Turnhoii't' -Ov ( Cv e, jL^<W*Jrx. [<MrCs~^r~riT' 

wtwerpo I s 7 IIo iirn,/ 7 ' 3 r °''~( i 

»\rt \ Mark'wJ *”1 Cassel/7^ 

Je ^ />' I® j DusselUorf W< stphaliap g >- r N ' 

'*'* J ^ > f J{T< Cologne^ tZfi'iytainz) 

>Vf__ / L a n d gpriat 


est~‘—'^Bishopric oi^Jt !■? ©rubeijb ! agen V 77 a 'w ld 
Paderborn/ v Vo-S 1 ^..’.Nord^auseiipi XanstgldY; 

\ j' * r ST P 6 TOftlnowri TvialpTipn 


Eisle”ben 



Duchy"; 

K<?»\ 

Juiieh'OA 0 ^ <•- 

' of \V^JCologne / \ 


1 Frankenha»^en_._j 
i‘ 'vMi’ilhausen /'-'Namnb 


-’(•Quentin 


18 





ierstj-? 

,- 7 ) hu 

.-'Jr*. , 

\ ’lu T.’otu;/flcJ ~J' 


lionn\^ 


I 

v / Coblenz 

if i t 

D, 7 

Arch-^f 


ouillon N > 



uxemburgN 



1 -uxemburir, 
Longvvj 


/U-r \ ^,j >. 
fUshoprjc 
Verdun^T \ 

•* - 'a ' _w 

•dun^j 


^ To Aassafr 

-^Elector.; 


(To' f-andstub! I ) 
Bisho 

«SS«M‘A O \ 




yloinville 


REFERENCE 

Boundary of Empire 
Hapeburg Territories 
Ecclesiastical Territories 
Imperial Cities A 



,Bish 


V 


^A Bar){> 

\ / nSF 

igies Y 

,-- t- 

.vf 

1 v C o u n t y 



, of/ Hes 
!C< -unty 

' ‘'xr >r~TpCb [ ,/F.ulda 
; Nassau---. )' etzl "‘f 4 j ; 
JEahnJr^JS ‘ i y 
.To ^ Treves') ^ 

Gelnhausen 


Jott ingen 

ichsfeld 

Mainz) 

i 'ViVijunauser. _ 

^ Duch^ofji / 

Schrn ilkalqen o 


bbe: 


OlH^enneLcrg- _ * 



Wittenberg 



ruUben 


Kottbus 
A' 




■yp'''- 
■ vj 


!-rfd 

Tkt 


, 0 '-pAijch.; 1 

Darmstadt ?fS 

Worms 


' TSEoi^elberg 


nj>o'\ " 

) Zrveibi-ucken| 

'-a-' ' v -i 

/MetzC \lVeissenburt V 

' \ /'-(.To Nassai(')'-f' ~ K - 

C ll V i- ■’ I Halevi 
^ - s .?.--7 Zabern / '9- 


6pricd 


Linda 


•Spire?'? ( i> i 
•Spir.es 



Plauen, 
Adorf'>. 


...Bida \ fv_ / Q-lEt/uss 

' I ^ViSaxony! A 

N » V- \ • 

•Sh 0p r f CKudmljilch 1 o 
y ps/Ba; r -r-eutb^-Jp^r 






rl’riii • 


--- 


'CountiV 
(dat-i)' of 


jrr-Koni-A»ergV > ( D a yr 


-.Mainz 


'indsheiin-^fS 


tnsbacl 


(Zo\Vetzl- N .ZvSfi. 

i ; - N Strasuurgt® 


e- 


an. 


. hlei^broim 
Lautferf \/ V s , 

hr- 


-isAns 


‘£)P Baden 


o f,i 


Stuttgart.- 


4} 


! © 


;W urte 


\ 







77 c r gf'B-v 

’ubingen.J 

J) IVn, 

Erotenz^fiem 

Wd--" 


Bayreuth' 

. r " TT 


^^yKothenburg ^J ( 




/— <Rottw f ei.. 

v -' < ,'i7bL r rg '' S '7^ • '■.\ i '< /{^ 

ibu'bg,.--'" < ' ;Bishopi)ic\ jof i j " 


I,t. POATES, ENGR., N.Y. 



County 

harohes 



Vesoul 



^ulhausen.gS 

: ! 0 u pp7 ^ 

t “AlsatiaZ 

\ f \ ' 1 x.— 

lA't /. IBasel"’ 

' /' Bjshopiic 

pf'S> v " 


'Besancon 
undy 


atjel 


'Scha.Tltausen'' '5si 
Constance 


v.Baden 


\ Zurich 



Wildbausi 
o 


Eern Lv 

o 9 n fed 

Freiburg' 


Kajjpe] J 

w 1n) s ' 

‘Ivt'A oEinsUcieln 

^SGlaruso . 

e / alii o n / 

) rp}^ ' 



St.GaIl 0 


J r 't 

Of Ty 

Tyrol 0 


Longitude 


East 8 


from 


Greenwieh 10 


Etsch B 


(Bishopric )„' 


t$i n Z2 J u J i 

'''^SaTzb u r g'-'\I) u c 



Innsbruck 

j ;—• Gasteln ° 

Brenner -' —- * \ / p- , -- ./ 

o\ XD u c h y\ > tA- 

U IX i—'I V ~\-. r | {TolBarriberg ) 

Brixen o/X ' (To'T3 or*d N ~ O f 


of jstyvia/ 

. Graz 

J > \ 

' ' (‘5'< < xaiJwy) 


' ,{^ 5 , ,—•) (2b IBambcrg) 1* R B > 

^ Klagenfuri ' ^ 4 

i^V E N I C i?"'N C a 1^® \ I 

\-lfi--X 
























































































































THE STATES OF EUROPE ABOUT 1500 


119 


Sit firm on Thy throne, O Lord,”*prayed one bishop, “or the 
Count of Hapsburg will shove Thee off.” 

After Rudolph’s death, the princes of the Empire (the Elec¬ 
toral College) passed the throne from family to family — until, 
in 1438, after a long line of Bohemian rulers, the imperial dig¬ 
nity came back to the Hapsburgs by the election of Albert, 

Duke of Austria. From this time, so long as the title endured, 
the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire ” was of the House of 
Austria , and election became a form only. 

The last medieval Emperor was Maximilian I (1493-1519), 
the one romantic hero of the Hapsburg race. He made a noble 
effort to bring Germany abreast of England and France. In the 
end he failed utterly, because of the selfishness of the German 
nobles and his own haughty willfulness; and Germany entered 
the Modern Aye a loose confederacy of many petty sovereign states 
grouped about Austria. 

The Mohammedan invasion of 711 (p. 41), separated the Spain 
development of Spain from that of the rest of Europe. For a J the . 

r close of 

centuries, “Africa began at the Pyrenees.” the Middle 

The wave of Moorish invasion, however, left unconquered Ages 
a few resolute Christian chiefs in the remote fastnesses of the 
northwestern mountains, and in these districts several little 
Christian principalities began the long task of winning back their 
land, crag by crag and stream by stream. This they accomplished 
in eight hundred years of war, — a war at once patriotic and 
religious, Spaniard against African, and Christian against Infidel. 

The long struggle left the Spanish race proud, brave, warlike, 
unfitted for industrial civilization, intensely patriotic, and blindly 
devoted to the church. 

During the eight centuries of conflict, the Christian states 
spread gradually to the south and east, — waxing, fusing, 
splitting up into new states, uniting in kaleidoscopic combina¬ 
tions by marriage and war, — until, before 1400, they had • 
formed the three countries, Portugal, Aragon, and Castile. 

Nearly a century later, the marriage of Isabella of Castile and 


120 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


















































THE STATES OF EUROPE ABOUT 1500 


i21 


Ferdinand of Aragon united the two larger states, and in 1492 
their combined power captured Granada, the last Moorish 
stronghold. In the year that Columbus discovered America 
under Spanish auspices, Spain at home achieved national union 
and national independence. During the next two reigns, the 
Spanish monarchy, financed by the treasures of Mexico and Peru, 
became the most absolute in Europe. 

While the civilized Mohammedan Moors were losing Spain, 
barbarous Mohammedan Turks were gaining southeastern Europe. 
They established themselves on the European side of the Helles¬ 
pont first in 1346. Constantinople held out for a century more, 
a Christian island encompassed by seas of Mohammedanism. 
But at Kossova (1389), the Turks completed the overthrow of 
the Serbs, and a few years later a crushing defeat was inflicted 
upon the Hungarians and Poles. Then in, 1453, Mahomet the 
Conqueror entered Constantinople through the breach where the 
heroic Constantine Palaeologus, last of the Greek emperors, 
died sword in hand. 

The Turks, incapable of civilization, always remained a 
hostile army encamped among subject Christian populations, 
whom their rule blighted. From 1453 Constantinople has re¬ 
mained the capital of their empire. That empire continued to 
expand for a century more (until about 1550), and for a time it 
seemed as though nothing could save Western Europe. Venice 
on sea, and Hungary by land, were long the two chief outposts 
of Christendom, and, almost unaided, they kept up ceaseless 
warfare to check the Mohammedan invaders. For a time, 
Hungary was conquered, and then Austria became the bulwark 
for Western Europe. 

Switzerland began to grow into a political state just before 
the year 1300. The brave and sturdy peasantry, in their 
mountain fastnesses, had preserved much of the old Teutonic 
independence. Some small districts (cantons) in the German 
Alps had belonged to the Hapsburg counts. When Rudolph 
of Hapsburg became duke of distant Austria (p. 118), he left 


The Turks 
and 
south¬ 
eastern 
Europe 


Switzerlan 
in the 
Middle 
Ages 


122 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 





■■111 

ftai 


























































SMALL STATES ABOUT 1500 


123 


these possessions to subordinate officers. These agents oppressed 
the Swiss by extortion and tyranny; and, in 1291, the three 

Forest Cantons”— TJri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden — formed 
a perpetual league for mutual defense against tyranny. 

For two centuries, from time to time, the Hapsburgs invaded 
Switzerland with powerful armies, in order to reduce the 
mountaineers to subjection; and very soon the league against 
oppression by the lord s agents became a league for independ¬ 
ence, against the lord himself. Freedom was established by 
two great victories ,—Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1386),— 
struggles to which belong the myths of William Tell and of 
Arnold of Winkelried. Between these two battles, other 
cantons rebelled against their lords and joined the alliance. 
The new members — among them Bern, Zurich, and Luzern — 
were small city states, wealthier and more aristocratic than the 
original union. 

Soon after Sempach, the constitution of the league was revised. 
Each canton kept complete control over its own internal affairs, 
and the “Diet,” or central congress of representatives, was 
hardly more than a meeting of ambassadors to manage foreign 
war and divide the plunder. The union kept this loose form 
until the French Revolution. 

The Netherlands (Low Countries) did not form an independent 
state in the Middle Ages. They were made up of a group of 
provinces, part of them fiefs of the Empire, part of them French 
fiefs. The southern portion has become modern Belgium ; the 
northern part, modern Holland. The land is a low, level tract, 
and in the Middle Ages it was more densely packed with teeming 
cities than any other part of Europe. 

The inhabitants were a sturdy, independent, slow, industrious, 
persistent people. Ghent claimed eighty thousand citizens able 
to bear arms, while Ypres is said to have employed two hundred 
thousand people in the weaving of cloth. Wealth so abounded 
that the “counts” of this little district excelled most of the 
kings of Europe in magnificence. 

Many of the cities, like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, were 


The 

Nether¬ 

lands 


Trade and 
manufac¬ 
tures 


124 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

built on land wrested from the sea by dikes, and they took 
naturally to commerce. In their markets, the merchants from 
Italy and the south of Europe exchanged wares with the 
Hansa merchants of the Baltic. And the Netherland towns 
were workshops even more than they were trading rooms. 

“Nothing reached their 
shores/’ says one histo¬ 
rian, “ but received a more 
perfect finish: what was 
coarse and almost worth¬ 
less, became transmuted 
into something beautiful 
and good.” Matthew 
Paris, 1 a thirteenth century 
English chronicler, ex¬ 
claimed that “ the whole 
world was clothed in Eng¬ 
lish wool manufactured in 
Flanders .” 

The need of English 
wool for the Flemish looms 
made Flanders the ally of 
England in the Hundred 
Years’ War. During this 
period the dukes of Bur¬ 
gundy became masters of 
Flanders. When Louis 
XI of France (p. 114) 
seized the rest of Bur¬ 
gundy from its last duke, 



Hall of the Clothmakers’ Gild at 
Ypres, Belgium; begun, 1200- fin¬ 
ished, 1364. Cf. p. 96. 


Charles the Bold, the Flemish towns wisely chose to remain 
faithful to Mary, the daughter of Charles. 

In return for their fidelity, an Estates General of the prov¬ 
inces secured from Princess Mary a grant of The Great Privilege, 

4 f^ ne ’ Matthew of p aris, signifies that this English monk had 

studied at the University of Paris. 



















Rheinstein, a Medieval Castle on the Rhine. 










THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES 


125 


the “Magna Carta of the Netherlands” (1478). This docu¬ 
ment promised (1) that the provinces might hold Diets at will 
composed, as before, of nobles and elected burgesses; (2) that 
no new tax should be imposed but by the central Diet, the 
“Estates General”; (3) that no war should be declared but 
by the consent of that body; (4) that offices should be filled by 
natives only; and (5) that Dutch should be the official language. 

Mary married the young Maximilian of Hapsburg (p. 119), 
and the Netherla?ids passed to the House of Austria. 

IV. “EUROPE” AT THE END OF THE MIDDLE AGES 

The rise of “monarchic states” is the political change that 
marks the close of the Middle Ages. At the moment it seemed 
a disaster to many great and good men, like the Italian Dante, 
who had their minds fixed on the old ideal of a united Christen¬ 
dom. But, since the days of the old Roman empire, Europe 
had never known a true union. “Latin Christendom,” in its 
best period, had contained several layers of society, — nobles, 
burgesses, artisans, priests, peasants. These horizontal lines 
of cleavage between classes had been far more disastrous to 
union than the new cleavage into nations was to be. One class 
had been more foreign to another in the same land than France 
to England. French noble and German noble were always 
ready to make common cause against peasants or townsfolk of 
either country. 

The real mission of each of the new monarchies , whether the 
monarchs saw it yet or not, was to weld all the classes within its 
land into one people with a common patriotism. While this was 
being done, some old liberties were lost. But, unconsciously, the 
monarchs were paving the way for a new freedom, a few centu¬ 
ries later, broader and safer than the world had ever known. 

We have noted the rise of new powerful monarchies in Eng¬ 
land, France, Spain, and Austria. Like governments had ap¬ 
peared in Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Denmark, and Poland. 
Two small lands, Switzerland and the Netherlands, were loosely 
connected with the Austrian Hapsburg monarchy. Two great 


The “ New 
Monarch¬ 
ies ” in 
Europe 


126 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


France and 
Spain in 
Italy 


The danger 
of a world- 
monarch 


lands had no part in the movement: until 1250, Germany 
and Italy had been the center of interest; but their claim for 
universal rule had left them broken in fragments. Not for 
centuries were they to reach this new form of united monarchic 
government. Leadership, therefore, passed from them to France, 
Spam, and England, the three countries in which the new 
movement was most advanced. Germany and Italy became 
little more than battle grounds for these other states. 

In Italy, in 1250, as a final blow at German dominance (p. 88), 
the pope had invited a French prince, Charles of Anjou, to 
become Ivmg of Sicily. Soon afterward, the city republics 
of North Italy (p. 99) fell under the rule of “tyrants/’ and by 
1450 the many petty divisions of the peninsula had been brought 
under one or another of “Five Great States,” the Kingdom of 
Sicily in the south, the Papal States in the center, and Milan 
Florence, and Venice, in the north. 

This movement toward unity, however, had not gone far 
enough to make Italy safe. In 1494, as heir of the House of 
Anjou, Charles VIII of France claimed the crown of Sicily 
crossed the Alps with a mighty army, and marched victoriously 
from end to end of the peninsula, regulating at will not only 
the southern kingdom but the northern states as well. But 
behind him gathered insulted Italian foes; Ferdinand of Aragon 
advanced a c aim to Sicily; and Venice joined the anti-French 

battle • , lli r eS . SeCUr 1 1 1 ' 8 retreat hlt0 France h y a desperate 
battle, but Spain was left mistress of Sicily and Naples. 

on swift steps brought the Hapsburg power within sight of a 

world-monarchy Ferdinand of Aragon had married one 

aughter to the young English prince soon to become Henry 

VIII, and another to Philip of Hapsburg, son of the Emperor 

aximilian and Mary of Burgundy (p. 125). From this last 

marriage, in 1500, was born a child, Charles. 

fath * r oi ’ C1 I arles , had been ruler of the rich provinces 

death lBtr/ Ugh WS mother - Mar V; and his early 
death left those districts to Charles while yet a boy. In 1516 

Charles also succeeded his grandfather, Ferdinand, as king 


DANGER OF HAPSBURG WORLD MONARCHY 127 



Illustration from a Fifteenth Century Manuscript, showing in the 
foreground Maximilian of Austria, Mary of Burgundy, and their son 
Philip. The original is in colors. 































































































































































































The periods 
within the 
feudal age 


(i) The 
Dark Ages 


128 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

of Sicily and Naples and as king of Spain, with the gold-pro¬ 
ducing realms in America that had just become Spain’s. Three 
years later he succeeded his other grandfather, Maximilian, 
as the hereditary ruler of Austria, with its many dependent 
provinces. Then, still a boy of nineteen, Charles became a 
candidate for the title of Emperor, which Maximilian’s death 
had left vacant; and his wealth (or that of his Flemish mer¬ 
chants) enabled him to win against his rivals, Francis of France 
and Henry VIII of England. 

Thiis Charles I of Spain, at twenty, became also Charles V, 
Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. This election gave him a 
claim to lordship over Germany and the rest of Italy. His 
hereditary possessions made it seem possible for a while that 
he might make his claim good — and so more than restore 
the empire of the first great Charles (Charlemagne). 

Compact France, at first, was his only obstacle (p. 115); 
and no time was lost by Charles and the French Francis in 
joining battle. The battle of Pavia left Francis a captive, and 
France apparently at the Hapsburg’s feet. But just then (1520) 
an obscure monk in Germany burned a papal bull and started 
a movement which split Germany and Europe at once into 
opposing camps, and rendered forever vain the dream of restoring 
the old imperial unity of Christendom. This was the political 
situation when Europe entered the new age of the Protestant 
Revolt. We must turn back once more to note the intellectual 
change that had prepared the way for that revolt. 

V. THE RENAISSANCE, 1300-1520 

The Age of Feudalism (pp. 54-104) covered five hundred 
years from S00 to 1300. The first three centuries (800- 
1100) were a continuation of the “Dark Ages” of the barbarian 
invasion, after the brief interruption by Charlemagne. In 
those gloomy three hundred years we noted the grim feudal 
system at its height, the medieval church, serf labor, the destruc¬ 
tive strife between empire and papacy, and, at the close, the 
Norman conquest of England. 


THE RENAISSANCE 


129 


The year 1100 was the threshold over which we passed from 
those centuries of gloom to two centuries of fruitful progress. 
That Age of the Crusades saw also the rise of towns, of 
universities, of popular literatures, of Gothic architecture in 
cathedrals and town halls, of the growth of France out of 
feudal fragments into one kingdom, and of the rise of courts 
and of Parliament in England. 

The year 1300, to which we have now come, is another mile¬ 
stone of progress, introducing two centuries of still more rapid 
advance. The period 1300-1520 we call the Age of the Renais¬ 
sance, because those centuries are marked by a “rebirth” of a long- 
forgotten way of looking at life. That old way had expressed itself 
in the art and literature of the ancient Greeks. Accordingly, 
the men of the new age were passionately enthusiastic over all 
remains of the old classical period. The fundamental char¬ 
acteristic of the Renaissance, however, was not its devotion to 
the past, but its joyous self-trust in the present. The men of the 
Renaissance cared for the ancient culture because they found 
there what they themselves thought and felt. 

Between those classical times and the fourteenth century 
there had intervened centuries of very different life — which 
we have been studying. Those “Middle Ages” had three 
marks on the intellectual side. (1) Ignorance was the general 
rule; and even the learned followed slavishly in the footsteps of 
some intellectual master. (2) Man as an individual counted for 
little. In all his activities he was part of some gild or order or 
corporation. (3) Interest in the future life was so intense that 
many good men neglected the present life. Beauty in nature 
was little regarded, or regarded as a temptation of the devil. 

The Renaissance changed all this. (1) For blind obedience 
to authority, it substituted the free inquiring way in which the 
Ancients had looked at things. (2) Men developed new self- 
reliance and self-confidence, and a fresh and lively originality. 
And (3) they awoke to delight in flower and sky and mountain, 
in the beauty of the human body, in all the pleasures of the 
natural world. 


(2) The 
Crusades 


The age of 
the Ren¬ 
aissance 


Relation to 
“ Ancient ” 
culture 


The Ren¬ 
aissance 
and the 
feudal age 


The Ren¬ 
aissance 
begins in 
Italy 


130 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

This transformation - one of the two or three most wonderful 
Changes in all history - began first in Italy. It was well over in 
lat land by 1550; while it hardly began in England until 1500 
ail t ere it lasted through Shakspere’s age, to about 1600.’ 
It showed itself, too, at different times in different ways : first in 
art, then m a revival of learning, and finally in religious reform. 



ST '^ich K wkJbased upOT 18 th e a Rn m0US eXample of famine architecture, 
Saracenic influences Note and modified by Gothic and 
Ducal Palace on opposite page ” domes ' See «>» the 

ViS' y hld S b he nat T‘! h ° m ! f ° r a revival in ^terature and art. 
M W A ’; ead by . a few Italian scholars all down the 

., 1 6 S< f' 16 Ita * lan language was nearer the Latin 

or" 0t er European lan guage was, and more manuscripts 
of the ancient Roman writers survived in Italy than elsewhere 

in Western Europe. Thus the Italian Petrarch (1304-1374) 
stands out the first great champion of the coming age His 
graceful sonnets are a famous part of Italian poetry, but his 





























THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 


131 


real work was as a tireless critic of the medieval system. He 
attacked vehemently the superstitions and false science of the 
day > he ridiculed the universities, with their blind reverence 
for authority,” as “nests of gloomy ignorance.” But he did 
more than destroy. He, and his disciples after him, began 
enthusiastic search for classical manuscripts and other remains, 
to recover what the ancients had possessed of art and knowledge! 
One of those disciples, Boccaccio, wrote the first dictionaries of 



The Ducal Palace, Venice, facing the Square of St. Mark’s. 

classical geography and of Greek mythology, and brought back 
the study of Greek to Italy. 

After 1400, the knowledge of Greek grew rapidly among the The revival 
educated. Greek scholars were invited to the Italian cities and of cla . ssical 
were given professorships in the universities. Increasing Ifcdy Prided 
danger in the Greek Empire from the Turk made such invita- £y thefa11 
tions welcome, and the high prices paid by princely Italian stantinople 
collectors drew more and more of the literary treasures of Con¬ 
stantinople to the Italian cities. Many a fugitive scholar from 
the East found the possession of some precious manuscript 







132 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 


the key to fortune and favor. This movement received a 
sudden, but brief, acceleration when Constantinople fell, in 
1453. “Greece did not perish,” said an Italian scholar; “it 
emigrated to Italy.” And soon the new enthusiasm for the 
classics ( humanism ) captured even the universities, which at 
first had withstood it fiercely. 

Renaissance Painting and sculpture were reborn, with the rebirth of delight 
in life. Italian painting culminated in the years from 1470 to 
1550. To these eighty years belongs the work of Leonardo da 
Vinci, Michael Angelo, Perugino, Raphael, Andrea del Sarto, 
Giorgione, Titian, Tintoretto, Correggio. A little later came 
the great periods of Dutch and Spanish painting. The new 
development in this art in all these lands was made possible, of 
course, by new methods of preparing oil paints, invented by the 
Van Eycks in Holland, so that it was possible to paint upon 
canvas, instead of only upon walls and ceilings. 


Return 

toward 

pagan 

morals 


There was an evil, pagan side to the Italian Renaissance. 
The men of the new movement, having cast off old restraints 
and religious beliefs, fell often into gross and shallow unbelief 
and into shameless self-indulgence. Delight in beauty some¬ 
times sank into gross sensuality. Morals declined; and for a 
time Italian society sank lower than the old pagan world. The 
“Men of the Renaissance” were always polished and elegant 
and full of robust vitality; but many of them went to their goal 

recklessly by any means, and some of them were monsters of 
atrocity and treachery. 

This side of the Renaissance was typified by the Italian 
Condottieri, — roving captains of bands of soldiers of fortune. 
These chieftains sold their services to any city with a price to 
P a y> an( i then betrayed it, on occasion, or seized it for them¬ 
selves, if convenient. Such was the source of most of the 
Italian “tyrants” (p. 126) of the time. Many of them were 
generous patrons of art and learning; but their marked char¬ 
acteristics were indomitable will, reckless scorn of danger, 
powerful minds, and absolute freedom from moral scruple — 


THE NORTHERN RENAISSANCE 


133 


which led them to extremes of cruelty and perfidy whenever 
such measures seemed useful to them. Like traits show a few 
years later, in the Spanish conquerors of the New World, — 
Cortez, Pizarro, Balboa, and their fellows. The scores of Eng¬ 
lish sea-kings of the next century — Raleigh, Drake, Hawkins, 
Gilbert, Grenville (who fought “the fight of the one and the 
fifty-three *) belong to the same order of men except that 
in them cruelty is refined into sternness, and perfidy is replaced 
by lofty honor — because of the moral earnestness of the 
Renaissance in the North. 


For in the north of Europe the Renaissance was religious 
and scientific rather than artistic. A little before 1500, the 

New Learning from Italy was welcomed by an enthusiastic 
group of young scholars in England, known as the “Oxford 
Reformers. In Italy, Petrarch and his followers had started 
the new science of “historical criticism/’ — a careful study 
of old and corrupted documents to find out their original form 
and true meaning. The Oxford Reformers developed this 
science into a means of correcting evils and errors that had 
crept into religion. 

This was especially true of Erasmus, a Hollander living in 
England. In 1516 he published the New Testament in the 
original Greek, with a careful Latin translation. The Greek 
text was prepared much more carefully, and was undoubtedly 
much nearer the original gospels, than any the Middle Ages 
had knowm, and it was accompanied by critical notes. Now, 
for the first time, ordinary scholars could test the accuracy of 
the. common translation (the Vulgate) in use in the church. 
Afterward Erasmus edited the writings of many early Christian 
Fathers, to show the character of early Christianity. 

In another sort of works, as in his Praise of Folly, Erasmus 
lashed the false learning and foolish methods of the monks and 
Schoolmen. He has been called “the Scholar of the Reforma¬ 
tion.” His writings did furnish Luther (p. 137) with much 


The 

religious 

and 

scientific 
Renaissan 
in the 
North 


Erasmus, 

1466-1536 


1 Read Tennyson’s poem of that name. 


Sir Thomas 
More 


New 

inventions 
change the 
world 


134 BRIEF SURVEY OF EARLIER PROGRESS 

material ready for use against the old religious system; but 
Erasmus was not himself a revolutionist. Instead, he worked, 
with beautiful charity and patience and largeness of view, for 
reform within the great mother church. 

Another leader of the Oxford Reformers was Sir Thomas 
Moie, one of the noblest Englishmen of any age. He was a 
distinguished scholar — his learning brightened by a gentle 
and pervading humor — and a man of great personal charm. 
In the year that Erasmus published his Greek Testament, More 
issued his Description of the Republic of Utopia (“Nowhere”). 
He portrays, with burning sympathy, the miseries of the English 
peasantry, and points accusingly to the barbarous social and 
political conditions of his time by contrasting with them the 
conditions in “Nowhere” — where the people elect their gov¬ 
ernment (which accordingly is devoted solely to their welfare), 
possess good homes, work short hours, enjoy absolute freedom 
of speech, high intellectual culture, and universal happiness, 
with all property in common. Utopia was the first of the many 

modern attempts to picture, in the guise of fiction, an ideal 
state of society. 

The new intellectual movement was marked by a number of 
new inventions or by the first practical use of them. Gunpowder, 
known for some time but much improved about 1500, gave the 
final blow to the already dying feudalism. Printing, from 
movable types (1450) upon cheap paper instead of parchment, 
did more to advance the new order than gunpowder could do to 
destroy the old. The telescope gave knowledge of other worlds. 
The mariner’s compass came in time to enable Columbus to 
double the area of the world. 






T) 1f X OLO i? NE CA ™ EI \ RAr 7 - This magnificent structure was begun in 12< 

M "u P Stnl 82 r‘V nd T n a “ ed e " tirely during the Keformati, 

i r ? Umed ln 1823 and was finally completed in 1880 
in the Cathedral of Amiens - and a11 that - *>< 


r ' 


~^1 






136 



















































PART I 

THE AGE OP THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION, 1520-1648 

CHAPTER I 

THE REFORMATION UPON THE CONTINENT 

LUTHERANISM 

All the later references to tlie church, m the preceding survey 
have involved some mention of abuses growing up within it. 
Good Christians lamented those abuses. A few wise, broad¬ 
minded, genial men, like Erasmus and More (pp. 133-134), 
strove earnestly to reform them. Less patient, more impetuous 
men broke away in revolt against the church itself. This 
revolt divided Western Christendom into hostile camps for 
centuries. It is called the Protestant “Reformation” or, per¬ 
haps better, the Protestant “Revolt.” This latter name helps 
us to keep in mind that the Protestant movement does not 
include a vast “reform” within the church itself, a reform 
begun by Erasmus and his associates and hastened of course 
by the “revolt.” 

The revolt began in Germany. That land had a special griev¬ 
ance. It was then a poor country; but, since it lacked a strong 
government to protect it, its little, hard-won wealth was drained 
away to richer Italy by extortionate papal taxes of many sorts. 
A like abuse existed in other countries, but nowhere else in so 
serious a degree. From peasant to prince, the German people 
had long grumbled as they paid ; and they needed only a leader 
to rise against papal control. 

Martin Luther (1483-1546), son of a Thuringian peasant- 
miner, became that needed leader. Luther was a born fighter, — 

137 


The need 
for 

religious 

reform 


Special 
abuses 
in Germany 


Martin 

Luther 



138 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 


» 


a straightforward, forceful man, with a blunt homely way that 
sometimes degenerated into coarseness. Erasmus addressed 
polite society : Luther spoke to the people. His father had meant 
him to be a lawyer, and, with great difficulty, had managed to 
send him to a university; but, seized by terror of hell and fear 
for his soul, the young Martin suddenly joined the Augustinian 
friars — an order somewhat like the Franciscans. His scholar¬ 
ship and his effective preaching soon attracted attention, and 



St. Peter’s, Rome. — 


lo the right stands the Vatican, the palace of 
the popes. 


Luther and 
the sale of 
indulgences 


Duke Frederick the Wise of Saxony made him a professor of 
theology in the new University of Wittenberg. There, at 
thirty-four, he entered upon his struggle with Rome. 

uther s revolt began in his opposition to the sale of indul¬ 
gences. To get money to rebuild St. Peter’s Cathedral at 
Rome, a German archbishop had licensed John Tetzel, a Do¬ 
minican, to sell indulgences. The practice was an old one 

:::z ea iTr th u edoctrine ° f,,penance -” author** 

-or fr 1 'rfT WaS> that ’ in reward for pious act 

for the gift of money for a pious purpose — a sinner who 

























MARTIN LUTHER 


139 


had trul V ^Vented and who had, so far as possible, atoned for 
his sins, might have the punishment due in purgatory remitted 
by the church. Letters of indulgence” from the pope, — the 
immediate representative of St. Peter, — were especially valued, 
and it had become customary to sell them in great quantities as 
one source of the papal revenues. The ignorant masses, unable 
to read the Latin documents, often thought that an “ indul¬ 
gence w as an unconditional pardon, — contrary to the doc¬ 
trine of the church, or even that it was a license to sin in 
future; and some professional “pardoners,” who peddled such 

letters, encouraged these gross errors in their zeal to raise 
money. Tetzel was a special offender in this way. A rude 
German rhyme, ascribed to him, runs, “ The money rattles in 
the box; the soul from purgatory flies.” More than a hundred 
years before Luther, the bright-souled Chaucer had given the 
only bitter lines in his Canterbury Tales to the Pardoner with his 
wallet “bret-ful of pardons, come from Rome all hot.” Since 
then, the evil had grown hugely. The gentle Erasmus wrote 
scathing words against it. Luther had criticized it on more than 
one occasion. Now a visit of Tetzel to Wittenberg, with a batch 
of these papal letters, aroused him to more vehement protest. 

On a Sunday in October, 1517, Luther nailed to the door Luther’s 
of the Wittenberg church ninety-five “theses” (statements) theses 
upon which he challenged all comers to debate. That door was Germany 
the usual university bulletin board, and it was customary for one 
scholar to challenge others to debate in this way. 

But Luther’s act had consequences far beyond the university. 

The theses were in Latin, the regular university language. They 
accepted the church doctrine about indulgences, but criticized 
savagely the abuses connected with the practice of selling them . 

Is there not danger, Luther hinted, that poor men may wonder 
why, if the pope releases souls from purgatory for money, he does 
not do so for charity’s sake ? It was these criticisms that drew 
popular attention. The printing press scattered copies of the 
theses broadcast in German, and in a few days they were being 
discussed hotly over all Germany. 


140 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 


Luther and 
the pope 


At first Luther seems to have had no thought of denying 
the authority of the pope. Indeed, he asserted that the pope 
would be the first to condemn TetzeFs practices. And he was 
honestly amazed, too, at the public attention his theses received. 
He dedicated a pamphlet in defense of them to Pope Leo (X), and 
in his letter to the pope he says: 


“By what unlucky chance it is that these propositions of mine should 
go forth into nearly all the earth, I am at a loss to know. They were 
set forth here for our use alone. ... But what shall I do? Recall 
them I cannot; and yet I see that their notoriety bringeth upon me 
great odium. In order then to soften my adversaries, ... I send forth 
these trifles to explain my theses. For greater safety, I let them go 
forth, most blessed Father, under your name and under the shadow of 
your protection. Here all who will may see how basely I am belied. 

. . . Save or slay, call or recall, approve or disapprove, as it shall best 
please you, I shall acknowledge your voice as the voice of Christ” 


The matter of indulgences soon dropped out of sight. The 
papal legate in Germany reprimanded Tetzel so sternly for his 
gross mispractice that the offender is said to have died soon 
after from mortification. At all events, now that the church 
had its attention called so forcefully to the abuses, they were 
soon corrected. 1 But, meanwhile, in the heat of argument, 
Luther passed quickly to a more radical position. He startled 
all parties by expressing approval of the heretic Hussites; 
and m 1519 he denied the authority of the pope and of church 


1 Catholics to-day admit, of course, that there had been good cause for 
complaint One of the greatest of modern scholars, the Catholic Jansen 
(mstory of the German People, III, 92) declares that “grievous abuses” in 
the manner of offering indulgences “caused all sorts of scandal.” The 
Council of Trent, which sat at intervals from 1545 to 1563, to reform the 
church, reasserted the old doctrine in its purity, emphasizing the ind^pen! 
sable need of contrition, confession, and atonement.” It condemned 
those who assert that indulgences are useless, or who deny the power of 
the church to grant them. ... In granting them, however, the Council 
esmes that . moderation be observed. . . . And, being desirous of 
mending the abuses which have crept in, by occasion of which the honorable 
name of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, the Council ordains 
that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof be abolished.” In later times 

continued 106 induIgenoes in retum f ° r ™oney has been dis- 


3 


LUTHER AT WORMS 


141 


councils, appealing instead to the Bible as the sole rule of conduct 
and belief. 


Luther tried to substitute one authority for another. 
He had no intention of advancing freedom of thought. 
But the Bible is capable of many interpretations. His 
appeal to the Bible as the sole authority meant Luther’s 
understanding of the Bible. In the mouth of another man, 
however, the same appeal meant that other’s understand¬ 
ing of the book. So, unintentionally , the Protestant revolt 
came to stand for the right of individual judgment in matters 
of religion. 


Pope Leo, a gentle and good man, tried to bring the rebel back 
into the church by persuasion and argument; but when this 
failed, he issued a bull of excommunication against Luther. 
The document condemned a number of the new teachings, 
ordered Luther to burn his books, and threatened him and his 
followers with punishment as heretics unless they recanted 
within two months. Instead of burning his own books, Luther 
burned the papal bull in a bonfire of other writings of the church, 
before the town gate in December, 1520, while a crowd of students 
and townsfolk applauded and brought fuel to feed the flames. 
Open war had begun between the German friar and the church. 

Luther was protected by his monarch, the Duke of Saxony; 
and the pope appealed to the young Emperor, Charles V (p. 128), 
to punish the heretic. Germany was in uproar. A papal 
legate wrote, “Nine-tenths of Germany shouts for Luther.” 
The Emperor, coming to Germany for the first time, called an 
imperial Diet 1 at Worms (1521) and summoned Luther to be 
present, pledging safe conduct. 

Friends tried to dissuade Luther from going, pointing to the 
fate of Hus a century before; but he replied merely, “ I would 

1 The German Diet in early times contained only nobles. In the four¬ 
teenth century, representatives of the “free cities” were admitted. Then 
the Diet sat usually in three Houses, Electors (the seven great princes), 
Princes (of second rank), and City Representatives. It never gained any 
real place in the government of the Empire. 


Luther 
burns the 
papal bull 


Luther 
at Worms 


142 


THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY 


A German 
Bible 


Lutheran¬ 
ism wins the 
North 
German 
princes 


The peasant 
rising in 
in 1525 


go on if there were as many devils in Worms as there are tiles 
on the housetops/’ He found himself confronted with scornful 
contempt by the great dignitaries of the church and of the 
Empire, arrayed almost solidly against him. But he boldly 
answered the haughty command that he recant, — “ Unless I 
am proven wrong by Scripture or plain reason ... my con¬ 
science is caught in the word of God. . . . Here I stand. As 
God is my help, I can no otherwise.” 

Charles kept his pledge, and Luther departed in safety. A 
month later the Diet pronounced against him the “ban of the 
Empire, ordering that he be seized for execution and that 
his writings be burned. But the friendly Frederick of Saxony 
had had him seized, on his way homeward, and carried into hid¬ 
ing in the castle of Wartburg. Here, while for a time most of his 
followers mourned him as dead, Luther translated the New 
Testament into strong and simple German. 

While he was still in hiding, his teachings were accepted by 
whole communities. Priests married; nuns and monks left 
their convents; powerful princes joined the new communion, 
sometimes from honest conviction, sometimes as an excuse for 
seizing church lands. 

In lo22, in spite of dangers, Luther left his retreat to guide 
the movement again in person and to restrain it from going to 
extremes that he disliked. Changes in religion, he urged, 
should be made only by the governments, not by the people 
He preserved all that he could of the old church services and 
organization, establishing them on essentially the basis on which 
they still stand in the Lutheran church. By 1530, the Lutheran 
church, under the 'protection of the rulers of the various states, was 
in possession of North Germany. 

Meantime the revolt against the old church had led to the 
rise of some sects of wild fanatics, one of which found sanction 
for polygamy in its interpretation of the Bible. In 1525 , there 
had been a great rising of the peasants, demanding, “in the name 
of God’s justice,” the abolition of serfdom and the right of each 


THE PEASANT WAR 


143 


parish to choose its own pastor. The peasants in Germany 
were in a much more deplorable condition than in England, and 
the new religious teachings had spread among them in connec¬ 
tion with new ideas about property, — somewhat as with the 
Lollard movement in England a hundred years before. So 
when they rose in arms, in several places they avenged centuries 
of cruel oppression by massacres of old masters. 

Luther feared discredit for his new church, and called furi¬ 
ously on the princes to put down this rising with the sword — 
to smite, strangle, or stab.” The movement was quickly 
stamped out in blood. The brutal nobles slew many thousands 
of peasants in merciless battle, and murdered at least ten 
thousand more in cold blood after the struggle was over, — 
with ghastly scenes that infinitely surpassed in horror any 
excesses by the ignorant peasants themselves. The whole 
peasant class was crushed down to a level far lower than before, 
— lower than anywhere else in Europe, — where they were to 
remain helpless for almost three hundred years. 

Charles V, the young emperor, was a zealous churchman, 
and if his hands had been free, he would have enforced the ban 
of the Empire promptly and crushed Lutheranism at its birth. 
But even while the Diet of Worms was condemning Luther, the 
Spanish towns were rising in revolt and Francis I of France was 
seizing Italian territory (p. 128). These events called Charles 
hastily from Germany. He put down the rebellion promptly 
and crushed the ancient liberties of the Spanish towns; but the 
wars against France, and against the Turk, with only brief 
truces, filled the next twenty-three years (1521-1544); 1 and 
so for a generation the new faith was left to grow strong. 

It is a peculiar fact that the two countries destitute of 

settled government gave Europe the Renaissance and the 

1 Some features connected with those wars may be assigned for special 
reports, if the teacher cares to delay upon them. The following topics are 
especially suitable: The Battle of Pavia; the sack of Rome by Charles’ 
Lutheran soldiers; the alliance between Francis and the Turkish Solyman; 
Solyman’s invasion of Germany; the ravages of Turkish pirates. 


Luther 
preaches 
a war 

against the 
peasants 


Foreign 
wars keep 
Charles V 
from acting 


144 


THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY 


The “ Prot 
estants ” 
and the 
Augsburg 
Confession 


Peace of 
Augsburg 


Reformation. The intense city life in the small Italian 
states was favorable to the intellectual activity of the 
Renaissance; and the absence of strong central government 
was the condition which permitted Lutheranism so long 
to grow unchecked among the princes of Germany. 

The first pause in the French wars came in 1529. Charles 
at once summoned a German Diet at Speier, which reaffirmed 
the decree of \\ orms. Against this decision, however, the 
Lutheran princes in the Diet presented a protest. This act 
gave the name Protestant to their party. 

The following year, in a Diet at Augsburg, the Lutherans put 
forward a written statement of their beliefs, “the Augsburg 
Confession,” which is still the platform of the Lutheran church. 
Charles, however, prepared to enforce by arms the decrees of 
Worms and Speier. In defense, the Protestant nobles organized 
a League, but an open clash was once more postponed, because 
Solyman the Magnificent, the Turkish Sultan, invaded Germany 
and threatened the imperial capital, Vienna. 

Before Charles was again at liberty to give his attention to his 
Protestant subjects, Lutheranism had become the religion not 
only of most of Germany but also of all Scandinavia, while the 
English church had cut itself off from Rome as an independent 
Episcopal church (p. 154), and a new Presbyterian heresy had 
begun to spread rapidly in France. 

Try as he might, Charles did not find himself free to strike 
in Germany until 1546, the year of Luther’s death. Then two 
brief struggles settled the contest for the time. In the first, 
Charles seemed completely victorious; bin almost at once the 
defeated princes rallied again, drove Charles in hurried flight 

from their domains, and forced him to accept the Peace of 
Augsburg (1555). 

According to this treaty, each ruling prince of the Empire 
was free to choose between Lutheranism and Catholicism for 
himself and for all his subjects; but if an ecclesiastical ruler 
became a Protestant, he was to surrender his lands to the 

n 













































LUTHER AND ZWINGLI 


145 


church, from whom they came. This peace secured toleration 
for princes only, not for their subjects. The people were ex- 
pected to follow the religion of the ruler. 

The Protestants in their last rising had sought aid from 
Henry II, the new French king; and France for her reward had 
seized some German districts, including the city of Metz. 
Chagrined at the loss, and disheartened by the split within the 
Empire, Charles abdicated his many crowns in 1556. His 
brother Ferdinand became ruler of Austria, and soon after 
was chosen Emperor, while by marriage he added Hungary to 
the Hapsburg hereditary dominions. Charles’ son, Philip II, 
received the Netherlands, Spain, Naples, and Spanish America. 

There were now two Hapsburg Houses, one in Spain, one in 
Austria. France, with some reason, feared that she might be 
crushed between them, and was long eager to take advantage of 

any chance to weaken them, or to seize German lands at their 
expense. 

For Further Reading. — The opening chapters of Beard’s Martin 
Luther picture conditions in Germany. Lindsay’s Luther and the 
German Reformation is excellent and brief. Much source material is 
given in Robinson s Readings. The great Catholic histories are too 
extended and costly for high schools; but, if students have access to 
the work, they should consult the scholarly Catholic Encyclopedia 
(“Luther,” ix, 438 ff.; “Indulgences,” VII, 783 ff., etc.). 

CALVINISM — IN SWITZERLAND AND FRANCE 

While Lutheranism was winning North Germany and Scan¬ 
dinavia, another form of Protestantism, Calvinism, was growing 
up in Switzerland and, for a time, in France and even in the 
west of Germany. 

This movement was started in 1519 (the year before Luther 
burned the papal bull), by Zwingli, a priest at Zurich, in German 
Switzerland. Zwingli, like Luther, was of peasant birth, but 
he too had enjoyed a good education. He was far more radical 
than Luther. Luther tried to keep everything of the old worship 
and doctrine that he did not think forbidden by the Bible. But 


Abdication 
of Charles 


Zwingli 

and 

Luther 


146 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 


Dissensions 
among the 
Protestants 


Zwingli refused to keep anything of the old Iht he did not think 
absolutely commanded by the Bible.. He also organized a strict 
system of church discipline which severely punished gaming, 
swearing, drunkenness, and some innocent sports. 

. ^ ie contrast between Zwingli and Luther appeared clearly 
in their different attitude toward the Catholic doctrine of tran- 
substantiation. Catholics believe that the bread and wine of the 
communion are turned by the sacrament into the actual body 
and blood of Christ. Luther tried to hold as much of this 
octrme as he could, and to keep to a literal use of Christ’s 
words “This is my body” {Mark, xxiv, 22). He taught 
t at the bread and wine were still bread and wine as they 
seemed, but that the body and blood of Christ were also 
present, along with them in the communion. “ CWsubstantia- 
tion” was the term used to signify this doctrine. The followers 
o wingli held that Christ’s words were figurative, and that 

t e bread and wine were only symbols to remind us of his 
sacrifice. 

This difference prevented a union between the two Protestant 
movements. Zwingli attempted to secure union, and a con¬ 
ference was arranged in 1529. But Luther stuck stubbornly 
to his text This is my body,” and when Zwingli offered his 
land in token of amity, Luther refused to take it unless Zwingli 
would first accept those words literally. 


This division illustrates the way in which the Protestant 
appeal to private judgment was to give rise to a multitude 
of sects. At first, in particular, these sects were scan¬ 
dalously hostile to one another; and, in Germany, the 
mutual hatred of Lutherans and Calvinists endangered 
more than once the whole cause of Protestantism. When 
the Lutheran princes secured the Peace of Augsburg for 
themselves, they did not include Calvinists in the toleration 
t ey secured. Catholics, of course, pointed to such dis¬ 
sensions as proof of the necessity of trusting to the collec¬ 
tive wisdom of the church, rather than to individual judg¬ 
es 


JOHN CALVIN 


147 


ments as conservatives and reactionaries always find 

argument in the absurdities of progressives. 

Zwingli’s teachings were accepted rapidly by the rich “city 
cantons of Switzerland, both German and French, like Zurich 
and Berne. But the peasant “forest cantons,” the core of the 
original confederation (p. 123), remained Catholic. In a battle 
between the two parties, in 1531, Zwingli was killed; but his 
work was soon taken up — and carried further — by the man 
whose name has come to stand for the whole movement. 

John Calvin was a young French scholar of sternly logical 
mind. He is the father of Puritan theology and of the Presby¬ 
terian church, with its system of synods and presbyteries. 
This system of church government and doctrine he built up at 
Geneva. 

Geneva was a French town in the Swiss Alps. It was not 
yet a member of the Swiss confederation, but it had recently 
become a free city-republic by rebellion against its overlord. 
That overlord had been a Catholic ecclesiastic; and so Geneva 
was now ready to accept the teachings of Zwingli. 

In 1536, Calvin, a fugitive from France because of his heresy, 
found refuge at Geneva, and soon became there an absolute dicta¬ 
tor over both the church and the civil government. Indeed, the 
civil government of the city was absorbed in the church govern¬ 
ment, and Geneva became a Puritan “theocracy” “with Calvin 
for its pope.” 

Calvin took the law of Moses rather than the spirit of Christ 
for the basis of his legislation. Blasphemy he counted a capi¬ 
tal crime, and he once had a child beheaded because it had 
struck its father. The government repressed harshly amuse¬ 
ments like dancing, and it tyrannized over the private life of 
citizens, punishing sternly for absence from church and for 
luxury in dress. But it did make turbulent and unruly Geneva 
into a sober, industrious commonwealth, and it furnished 
many hints for the Puritan colony of Massachusetts a century 
later. 


Calvin 
at Geneva 


Calvin 

and 

Servetus 


148 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 


One terrible case of persecution, in particular, stains Calvin’s 
iame. Servetus was a learned Spanish physician, with intense 
religious convictions somewhat like those of modern Unitarians. 
He had had some literary controversies with Calvin; but, to 
escape from Catholic persecution as a heretic at home, he fled 
to Geneva. Calvin’s government there seized him, tried him 

in its own way for heresy, 
and burned him at the stake. 

Incidentally, this crime 
put back medical progress for 
at least fifty years. The 
foundation of true medical 
science lies in a knowledge 
of the circulation of the 
blood, as taught in any ele¬ 
mentary physiology to-day. 
But in the time of Servetus, 
it had been believed for 
centuries that the bright 
blood of the arteries and 
the dark blood of the veins 

A Village Merrymaking of theriT- "’“’t tw0 distinct systems, 
teenth century, such as Calvin con- one * rom the heart, the other 

demned. Compare the earlier May- from the liver Servetus 
pole merry-making pictured on , , ° ervetu S 

page 68. lirst discovered that the two 

+ l , were one system. He found 

out how the dark blood is purified in the lungs, and understood 
fully the work of the heart. He had just published his medical 
discovery in the same book that contained his theological opin¬ 
ions. His persecutors sought out and burned this volume so 
zea ously that only two copies (out of the edition of a thou¬ 
sand) have survived, and these were long overlooked. The 
great discovery in physiology - which would have shown 
how to save hundreds of thousands of lives-was lost for 

(p 179 ) Cen Uly ’ Unt ' made a§am ’ lnde P end ently, in England 



7 























THE CATHOLIC “ COUNTER-REFORMATION ” 149 

It is worthy of note that Catholic Spain early erected a 
statue in honor of Servetus; and, in 1903, Calvinists all over 
the world subscribed a fund for the erection of the noble “ex¬ 
piatory statue,” which stands in Geneva to mark the spot 
where he suffered martvrdom. 

Calvin s writings influenced profoundly his own and future 
times. Ardent reformers from all Europe flocked to Geneva 
to imbibe his teachings, and then returned to spread Calvinism 
in their own lands. From Geneva came the seeds of Scotch 
Presbyterianism, of the great Puritan movement within the English 
church (soon to be treated), of the leading Protestant movement 
among the Dutch, and of the Huguenot church in France. John 
Winthrop, the founder of Massachusetts, took his ideas both 
in religion and in politics from Calvin. It is from the French 
Calvin, not the German Luther, that modern liberal Protestant¬ 
ism has sprung. 

In its original form, the Calvinistic doctrine seems to nearly 
all men of the present time too somber and merciless. It was, 
however, sternly logical. It made strong men, and it appealed 
to strong spirits. True, Calvin did not believe in democracy, 
and he taught that for “subjects” to resist even a wicked ruler 
was “to resist God”; but, in spite of this teaching, in the 
course of historical movements, Calvinism became the ally of 
political freedom in Holland, England, and America. 


CATHOLICISM KEEPS THE SOUTH OF EUROPE 

For a time, Protestantism promised to win also the south 
of Europe; but Spain, Italy, France, Bohemia, and South 
Germany, were finally saved to Catholicism. 

This was mainly because the old church quickly purged itself 
of old abuses. At first Erasmus and other Humanists had been 
interested in the work of Luther. But when it became plain 
that that movement was breaking up the unity of Christendom, 
they were violently repelled by it. Disruption into warring 
sects, they felt, was a greater evil than existing faults. They 


Calvinism 
in Scotland, 
England, 
and 

America 


The 

“ Counter- 
reforma¬ 
tion ” 


150 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 


The Jesuits 


The 

Inquisition 


Origin three 

centuries 

earlier 


continued to work, however, with even greater zeal than before, 
for reform within the church. 

Such reform was finally carried out by the Council of Trent 

(1545-1563). That great body did not change Catholic forms; 

but it defined some doctrines more exactly, pruned away evils’ 

(note on p. 140), and infused a greater moral energy into the 
church. 

The new religious enthusiasm within the Catholic world 
gave birth, also, to several new religious orders. The most 
important of these was the “Order of Jesus ” (Jesuits), founded 

in 1534 by Ignatius Loyola, a gallant Spanish gentleman of deep 
religious feeling. 

The Jesuits stood to the friars somewhat as the friars stood 
to the older monks (p. 76). Holding fast like the friars to 
an intensely religious private life, they represented a further 
advance into the world of public affairs. Their members mingled 
With men in all capacities. Especially did they distinguish 
themselves as statesmen and as teachers. Their schools were 
the best in Europe, and many a Protestant youth was won 
iac- y t em to Catholicism. In like manner, as individual 
counselors, they converted many a Protestant prince — es¬ 
pecially in Germany, where the religion of the prince deter¬ 
mined that of Ins people; and their many devoted missionaries 
among the heathen in the New Worlds won vast regions to 
Christianity and Catholicism. 

Unhappily less praiseworthy forces had a share in the victory 
ot Catholicism. Religious wars, we shall see (p. 166 ff.) in 
arge part kept France, Bohemia, and South Germany Catholic • 
and elsewhere the final success of the Catholic church in crush- 
mg out Protestantism was due in part to the Inquisition. 

I he Inquisition dated back to the twelfth century, some three 
hundred years earlier. At that time the church had suffered 
one of its periods of decline; and discontent with its corruption 
had given rise to several small heresies. The most important 
of these twelfth century heretical sects were the AUnaenses in 
southeastern France. They rejected some doctrines of the 

7 


THE SPANISH INQUISITION 


151 


church, and they rebelled especially against its government 
by pope and priesthood — so that an old by-word, “ I had rather 
be a Jew,” became, for them, “ I had rather be a priest” ! 

The church had made many vain attempts to reclaim these 
heretics by gentle persuasion, and finally, the great reforming 
pope, Innocent III, proclaimed a “holy war” against them, 
declaring them “more wicked than Saracens.” The feudal 
nobles of northern France rallied gladly to this war. Aside 
from religious motives, they hated the democracy which was 
beginning to appear in the rising towns of the south, and they 
hungered greedily for the rich plunder of that more civi¬ 
lized region. A twenty years’ struggle, marked by ferocious 
massacres, crushed the heretics, along with the prosperity 
— for a century — of what had been the richest province of 
France. 

When open resistance ceased in desolated Languedoc, the 
pope set up a special court to hunt out and exterminate any 
secret heretics remaining there. Soon afterward, this court , 
enlarged and reorganized, became a regular part of the govern¬ 
ment of the church for suppressing heresy. In this final form 
it is commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition. It held 
sway also in Portugal and Italy, as well as in the wide-lying 
possessions of Spain; but England and the Scandinavian lands 
never admitted it, and France only in very slight degree. 

In the south of Europe, now, the Inquisition became one The Spanish 
means of stifling the new Protestant heresies. Its methods and U prot° n 
were atrocious. Children were encouraged to betray their estantism 
parents, and parents their children. Often upon secret accusa¬ 
tion by spies, a victim disappeared, without warning, to under¬ 
ground dungeons. The trial that followed was usually a farce. 

The court seldom confronted the accused with his accuser, or 
allowed him witnesses of his choosing; and it extorted confes¬ 
sion by cruel tortures, carried to a point where human courage 
could not endure. Acquittals were rare. The property of 
the convicted went to enrich the church, and the heretic him¬ 
self was handed over to the government for death by fire. 


152 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 


Persecution of unbelievers was characteristic of the age. It 
disgraced every sect, Protestant as well as Catholic. But no 
Protestant land possessed a device so admirably calculated to 
accomplish its purpose as the Inquisition. In Spain, especially, 
it sifted out for destruction thousands upon thousands of the 
stoutest hearts and best brains, and played a great part in the 
intellectual blight that soon fell upon that people (p. 171). 

For Further Reading. Ward’s The Counter-Reformation is the 
best brief account of its subject. Much interesting matter on Jesuit 
missionaries can be found in Parkman’s histories, especially in Pioneers 
of New France , chs. v and vi, and Jesuits in North America , ch. ii. 


n 




CHAPTER II 


ENGLAND AND THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT 

In England , separation from Rome was at first the act of the 
monarchs, and the motives were personal and political. Henry 
VIII (the second Tudor *) had shown himself zealous against 
Luther, and had even written a book to controvert Luther’s 
teaching, in return for which the pope had conferred upon 
him the title, “Defender of the Faith.” A little later, how¬ 
ever, Henry desired a divorce from his wife, the unfortu¬ 
nate Catherine of Aragon, aunt of Charles V (p. 126), with 
whom he had lived for nineteen years. Catherine’s only child 
was a girl (Mary), and Henry was anxious for a son, in order 
to secure a peaceful succession at his death. More to the point, 
he wished sinfully to marry Anne Boleyn, a lady of the court. 
After long negotiation, the pope refused to grant the divorce. 
Thereupon Henry put himself in the place of the pope so far 


1 Cf. p. 113. The following table of Tudor rulers shows also the claim of 
the first ruler of the next royal family. 


(1) Henry VII (1485-1509) (See p. 113). 


Margaret (2) Henry VIII (1509-1547) 

(m. James IV of Scotland) 

James V of Scotland 


Mary 

(grandmother of 
Lady Jane Grey) 


(4) Mary (5) Elizabeth (3) Edward VI 
Mary Queen of Scots (1553-1558) (1558-1603) (1547-1553) 

(daughter of (daughter of (son of 

(6) James I Catherine Anne Boleyn) Jane Seymour) 

of England of Aragon) 

(1603-1625) 


the first 
Stuart king 


Henry VIII 
and his 
quarrel with 
the pope 


153 





154 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 


A Church 
of England 


The “ Pil¬ 
grimage 
of Grace ” 


as his island was concerned, and secured the divorce from his 
own courts. 

Three wives of Henry are named in the footnote on the 
preceding page. He had also three more, — marrying the 
third on the day after he beheaded Anne Boleyn for alleged 
immoral conduct. One other of the six was beheaded 
on a similar accusation ; and one was divorced, after six 
months, because homely. 

The secession of the English church was accomplished in 
the years 1532—1534 by two simple but far-reaching measures 
of Henry’s servile Parliament. (1) The clergy and people were 
forbidden to make any further payments to “ the Bishop of 
Rome”; and (2) the “Act of Supremacy” declared Henry the 
“only supreme head on earth of the Church of England.” When 
Parliament passed these laws, Luther’s movement was some 
twelve years old, and the Augsburg Confession had just been 
put into form. Zwingli had just been slain in Switzerland, and 
Calvin was about to take up his work. 

So far, in England, there had been no attach on the religious 
doctrines of the old church; and Henry wished none. But his 
chief advisers, especially Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
who had pronounced his divorce, had strong Protestant lean¬ 
ings; and so some additional measures were secured. The 
doctrine of purgatory was declared false; and the Bible, in 
English, was introduced into the church service, in place of 
the old Latin liturgy. The use of the English Bible was even 
permitted to private persons, except “husbandmen, artificers, 

journeymen, and women below the rank of gentlewoman” 
(a gentry title). 

Most of England accepted these changes calmly, and even 
the clergy made no serious resistance, as a class, to the over¬ 
throw of the pope’s power. But the monasteries were centers 
of criticism, and the north of England, more conservative than 
the south, was restless.^Finally Henry hung ten friars, who 
had spoken blunt words about his second marriage, and began 


DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES 


155 


to seize monastery property. Then the northern counties rose , 
to march upon London. 

Economic causes, too, had a part in the rising. The peasants 
were full of discontent at new conditions that will be described 
later (p. 182), and at a general rise in the cost of living which 
marked that period almost as emphatically as a like rise has 
marked the first of the twentieth century. The banner of the 
rebels bore a 'plow alongside the wounds of Christ. 

Henry’s generals broke up this “Pilgrimage of Grace” by 
promises of redressing grievances and of full pardon. But 
then Henry wrote: “You must cause such dreadful executions 
on a good number of the inhabitants, — hanging them on 
trees, quartering them, and setting their heads and quarters 
in every town, — as shall be a fearful warning.” And to carry 
out this treacherous policy of “frightfulness,” seventy-four 
leaders of the rising were executed, — among them, all the abbots 
in the north of England. 

Then Henry determined to root out resistance, and to enrich 
himself, by the utter ruin of the monasteries. A commission, 
which had hastily pretended to investigate them, declared them 
grossly corrupt. The report was grossly unfair, but it had 
been determined upon in advance; and, at the king’s wish, 
Parliament dissolved the seven hundred such institutions in 
England. 

A little of the wealth of the monasteries was set aside to found 
schools and hospitals (in place of the work in such lines formerly 
done by the monasteries themselves), but Henry seized most 
of the monastic lands for the crown. Then he parceled out 
parts of them, shrewdly, to new nobles and the gentry. 
Thousands of influential families were enriched by such gifts, 
and became centers of hostility to any reconciliation with 
Rome that would ruin their private fortunes. 

This dissolution of the monasteries was a deed of terrible 
cruelty. Many abbots who tried to resist the king’s will were 
put to death; but the most cruel results were felt by those 


Henry’s 
policy 
of “ fright¬ 
fulness ” 


Dissolution 
of the 

monasteries 


156 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 


Henry 

burns 

Protestants 
and hangs 
Catholics 


who lived. Eight thousand monks and nuns were driven, 
penniless, from their homes, and some eighty thousand other 
people lost their means of livelihood. But Henry had de¬ 
stroyed hostility to his “reform,” and had planted it deep in 
the interests of the country gentry and nobles. It is true, too 
that, when things finally adjusted themselves to the revolution,’ 



Tewksbuey Abbey, one of the few buildings of this class to escape ruin. 


the prosperity of England was increased by having the former 
property of the monasteries in lay hands. 


mitted ^littirT Were far 33 Henry WOllId g0 - He had Per¬ 
mitted little change in doctrine; and, to the close of his lone 

anTburned “1 ^ rec0gnized P a P*' headship, 

day, in^i h 1 "“hert'll Zee ** ~ 

death One p e * r 1 d three traitors suffered 
th. One Protestant martyr was Anne Askewe a gentle 

woman of good family, who was burned for insisting, “The 

















MARY TUDOR 


157 


bread of the communion cannot be God.” The most famous 
among the many noted Catholic martyrs was Sir Thomas 
More, the greatest Englishman of the day (p. 134). More had 
been Henry’s chief minister, for a time. He was willing to 
allow the king’s power over the church, so far as all temporal 
matters were concerned; but he could not take an oath denying 
the pope’s authority in spiritual matters. He was beheaded, 
and his head was impaled to 
wither on London Bridge. 

Every effort had been 
made to induce More to 
yield, and he had been plied 
with argument by subtle 
logicians. He was a broad¬ 
minded man and a states¬ 
man, — not disposed to die 
for a quibble. But con¬ 
science, not verbal quibble, 
was at stake. And when he 
had taken his stand, and 
the boat was bearing him 
down the Thames to prison, 
he was heard to exclaim, — 

“ I thank the Lord, the field 
is won ! ” He had indeed 
won a supreme victory, not only for his own soul, but for the 
spiritual freedom of all the world. 

Henry was succeeded by his son Edward VI (1547-1553). 
The new king was a boy of nine, and during his short reign the 
government was held by a rapacious clique of Protestant lords. 
Partly to secure fresh plunder from the ruin of the church, 
this government tried to carry England into the full current 
of the Protestant movement. Priests were allowed to marry. 
The use of the old litany, and of incense, holy water, and the 
surplice, was forbidden. Commissioners to carry out these 



Sir Thomas More. — After Rubens’ 
copy of Holbein’s portrait. 


Edward 
VI: perse¬ 
cution of 
Catholics 









158 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 


commands throughout England sometimes broke the stained 
glass windows of sacred buildings and tore from the pedestals 
the carved forms of saints. Rebellion broke out, this time in 
southwestern England, but was put down cruelly. Several 
Catholics were burned as heretics and conspirators, — among 

them Father Forest, who was roasted barbarously in a swinging 
iron cradle over a slow fire. & 


Queen 
Mary tries 
to restore 
Catholicism 


Mary’s 

persecutions 


. Dunn S thls P eriod > English Prayer Book was put into 
Its present form, under the direction of Cranmer (p. 154) • an d 

articles of faith for the church were adopted which inclined 
toward Calvinistic doctrine. 

Henry had had Parliament fix the order in which his chil- 
dren should be entitled to succeed him; and so when Edward 

the throne P a ®ed to his elder half-sister, Mary 
(1553 1558). Mary was a daughter of Catherine of Aragon 
(p. 153). She was an earnest Catholic, and naturally she felt 
an intense personal repugnance for the Protestant movement 
which had begun in England by the disgrace of her mother, 
laij s own crown, too, had been threatened by Protestantism. 
To prevent the accession of a Catholic, the Protestant lords had 
p o ted to seat on the throne Lady Jane Grey, a distant relative 
of the royal family (footnote, page 153). The attempt failed, 
nd Jane Grey, a girl of lovely character, was beheaded. 

e nation was still overwhelmingly Catholic in feeling 
e Protestants were active, organized, and influential; but 
they were few in numbers, and Mary had no difficulty in doing 
away with the Protestant innovations of her brother’s time. But 
Mary wanted more than this. She wished to undo her father’s 

ment’ ^ n restore f ngland to its allegiance to the pope. Parlia¬ 
ment readily voted the repeal of all anti-Catholic laws, but 

it refused stubbornly to restore the church lands. Finally 

the pope wisely waived this point. Then the nation was 

Ztlfary li int0 the R ° man <*«ch. 

jzzmr" CWI “ v -*- d ® * * ««* vJ- 


MARY TUDOR 


159 


All English patriots dreaded, with much reason, lest little 
England be made a mere province of the world-wide Spanish 
rule; and even zealous Catholics shuddered at the thought of 
the Spanish Inquisition which their imagination pictured loom¬ 
ing up behind the Queen’s hated Spanish bridegroom. 

This dread of the Inquisition made the people unusually 
sensitive to Mary’s religious persecution. That persecution in 
itself was quite enough to rouse popular fear and hatred. In 
a few months , more than two hundred and seventy martyrs 
were burned, — nearly half the entire number that suffered 
death for conscience’ sake in all English history. Catholics 
had died for their faith under both Henry and Edward; but 
there had been no such 'piling up of executions; and, moreover, 
most of those Catholic victims had been put to death, nom¬ 
inally, not for religious opinions, but as detested traitors; and 
the executions (with a very few exceptions) had taken place 
not by fire but by the more familiar headsman’s ax. England 
had taken calmly the persecutions by these preceding sovereigns, 
but it was now deeply stirred. 

The most famous martyrs of Mary’s persecution were Arch¬ 
bishop Cranmer and Bishops Ridley and Latimer. Latimer 
had preached in approval of the torture of Father Forest (p. 158 ) ; 
but now he showed at least that he too knew how to die a hero. 
“ Play the man, Master Ridley,” he called out to his companion 
in martyrdom, as they approached the stake; “ we shall this 
day, by God’s grace, light such a candle in England as, I trust, 
shall never be put out.” 

Other causes, too, made Mary unpopular. To please her 
husband (Philip) she led England into a silly and disastrous 
war with France, and then managed it so blunderingly that 
England lost Calais, its last foothold on the continent. Eng¬ 
land had never seemed more contemptible to other nations or 
In greater perils. Apparently, it was doomed to become the 
prey of Spain or France. 

Mary had come to the throne amid a burst of popular en¬ 
thusiasm. She was a pure-minded but narrow woman, seeking 


Mary’s 

unpopu¬ 

larity 


160 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 


Queen 

Elizabeth 


earnestly to do her duty; but, after a reign of five years, she 
died more universally detested than any other English sovereign 
had ever been except the tyrant John. As Henry’s parliaments 

had arranged, she was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth, 
then twenty-five years old. 


Elizabeth (1558-1603) was the daughter of Henry VIII and 
Anne Boleyn. From her father, she had a strong body, power- 
iul intellect, an imperious will, and dauntless courage; and 



walls enclosed seven Teres. Pagean * descrlbed in Sco “'» Kenilworth. Tt 


from her mother, vanity and love of display. Prom both 
parents she took a sort of bold beauty and a certain strain of 
coai seness. She had grown up in Henry’s court among the 
men of he New Learning (p. 133), and was probably the best 
ed ucated woman of her century, - speaking several languages 
and leading both Latin and Greek. She has been called ‘‘a 
true child of the Renaissance,” too(1n her freedom from moral 
scruple (p. 132). To Elizabeth, says a great historian, “a lie 
was simply an intellectual means of avoiding a difficulty.” 



















QUEEN ELIZABETH 


161 


She was often vacillating in policy; but she was a keen judge 
of men, and had the good sense to keep about her a group of 
wise and patriotic counselors, chief of whom were Walsingham 
and Cecil (whom she made Lord Burghley). 1 Now and then, 
in fits of passion, she stormed at these men like a common 
virago, but she never let them go; and her shrewd common- 
sense made her the real ruler even among such statesmen. 
Above all, she had a deep love for her country. After more 
than forty years of rule, she said proudly, and, on the whole, 



truly, — “ I do call God to witness, never thought was cherished 
in my heart that tended not to my subjects’ good.” 

And England repaid her love with a passionate and romantic 
devotion to its “ Virgin Queen.” Except for her counselors, 
men knew little of Elizabeth’s deceit and weaknesses. They 
saw only that her long reign had piloted England safely 
through a maze of foreign perils, and had built up its power 
and dignity abroad and its unity and prosperity at home, 

1 The Lords Salisbury, who have played so large a part in the England of 
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, are Cecils, and direct descendants 
of Elizabeth’s Cecil. 











162 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 


The “ Eliza¬ 
bethan 
Settlement ” 


The Act of 
Uniformity 


Persecution 
of Catholic 
“ traitors ” 


The 

Spanish 

Armada, 

1588 


while her court was made glorious by splendid bands of states¬ 
men, warriors, and poets. Amid the petty squabbles of suc¬ 
ceeding leigns, England looked back with longing to “the 
spacious days of great Elizabeth.” 

If hen Elizabeth came to the throne, at least two thirds of England 
was still Catholic in doctrine. Elizabeth herself had no liking 
for Protestantism, while she did like the pomp and ceremonial 
of the old church. She wanted neither the system of her sister 
nor that of her brother, but would have preferred to go back 
to that of her father. But the extreme Catholic party did not 
recognize her mother’s marriage as valid, and so denied Eliza- 
eth s claim to the throne. This forced her to throw herself 
into the hands of the Protestants. She gave all chief offices 
in church and state to that active, intelligent, well-organized 
minority; and the “Elizabethan Settlement” established the 
English Episcopal church much as it still stands. At about 
the same time, John Knox brought Calvinism from Geneva to 
Scotland, and organized the Scotch Presbyterian church. 

Early 111 Elizabeth’s reign, an “Act of Uniformity” had 
ordered all people to attend the Protestant worship, under 
threat of extreme penalties; but for many years this act was 
not enforced strictly, and Catholics were permitted to have 
t eir own services, if they were cloaked by a pretense of privacy. 
But after Catholic plots against her throne began, Elizabeth 
adopted stronger measures. Many leading Catholics were 
ned and imprisoned for refusing to attend the English church 
And, under a new law. Catholic priests, and others who made 
converts from Protestantism to Catholicism, were declared 
guiltj of treason. Many martyrs suffered torture on the rack 
and death on the scaffold - nearly as many as had died in the 
persecution of “ Bloody Mary”; but Elizabeth, like her brother 

appear punishment of 

aitors for political plots, instead of religious persecution. 

of Biron ;rrr ly threatened V the two great powers 
of Europe, Catholic Prance and Spain. Neither, however, was 

wi ing to see the other gain England; and by skillfully playing 



Elizabeth Knighting Drake on Board the Golden Hind. 




















THE SPANISH ARMADA 


163 


off one against the other, Elizabeth kept peace for many years 
and gained time for England to grow strong. Gradually it 
became more and more clear that the real foe was Spain. Then 
Elizabeth secretly gave aid to the Dutch, who were in rebellion 
against Philip II of Spain (p. 167), and, for years, English 
adventurers like Francis Drake sailed away on their own ac¬ 
count, half pirate fashion, 
to attack Spain in the New 
World. 

Finally Philip turned 
savagely upon England. 

Drake ruined his first prep¬ 
arations for invasion by 
sailing daringly into the 
harbor of Cadiz and burn¬ 
ing the Spanish fleet, — 

“ singeing the beard of the 
Spanish king,” as the bold 
sea-rover described it. But 
in 1588 the “Invincible 
Armada,” blessed by the 
pope, at last set sail for 
England. English ships 
of all sorts — mostly little 
merchant vessels hastily transformed into a war navy — 
gathered in the Channel; and, to the amazement of the world, 
the small but swift and better handled English vessels com¬ 
pletely outfought the great Spanish navy in a splendid nine 
days’ sea fight. As the shattered Spaniards fled around the 
north of Scotland, a mighty storm completed their overthrow. 
Spain never recovered her supremacy on the sea, — and the 
way was prepared for the English colonization of America. 

To the chagrin of Spanish king and Roman pope, the mass of 
English Catholics had proved more English than papal, and 
had rallied gallantly to the Queen; and, for young Englishmen, 
the splendid struggle made Protestantism and patriotism seem 



Elizabeth as she went to a Thanks¬ 
giving Service at St. Paul’s after the 
defeat of the Armada. 


England 

becomes 

Protestant 



164 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 


Ireland 

remains 

Catholic 


The 

Elizabethan 

Renaissance 


much the same thing. The' rising generation became largely 
Protestant; and before Elizabeth’s death (1603) even the 
Puritan doctrines from Geneva and from Presbyterian Scotland 
had begun to spread widely among the people. 

Ireland, the^third part of the British Isles, remained Catholic. 

enry II (p. 78) had tried to conquer Ireland; but, until the 
time of the Tudors, the English really held only a little strip 
of land (“ the English Pale”) near Dublin. The rest of Ireland 
remained m the hands of native chieftains. In the seventh and 
eighth centuries Irish schools had been the most famous in 
Europe; but now constant war had rooted out the old begin¬ 
nings of Irish culture, and the Irish tribes were half barbarous. 

eim II established English authority over most of the 
IS and and destroyed the monasteries, the chief remaining 
centers of industry and learning. Shortly before the Armada 
Spain made attempts to use the island as a base from which 
to attack England. Alarmed to frenzy by this deadly peril 
at their back door, Elizabeth’s generals then completed the 
military subjugation with atrocious cruelties. Tens of thou¬ 
sands of men, women, and children were killed, or perished of 
famine m the Irish bogs; and great districts of the country 
were given to English nobles and gentry. Incessant feuds 
continued between the peasantry and these absentee landlords 
am the Irish nation looked on the attempt to introduce the 

As EnG° f™ ^ u PaH ° f the hated En g lish t^nny. 

English patriotism became identified with Protestantism 

XcTthX' m 0mPletely ’ MSh Patri ° tiSm beCame 

Elizabeth’s reign was part of a period of important change in 
in ustry which will be treated later (pp. 181 ff.). The reign is 
best known however, for (1) the religious changes we have been 
racing, and (2) for the “ Etikabethan Renaissance” 

-xcept for the “Oxford Reformers” (p. 134), England had 
agged behind in the early Renaissance. But now it took a 
leading place. Edmund Spenser created a new form of EngHsh 


THE ELIZABETHAN RENAISSANCE 


165 


poetry in his Faerie Queene. And the splendor of the Elizabethan 
age found a climax in English drama, with Shakspere as the 
most resplendent star in a glorious galaxy that counted such 
other shining names as Marlowe, Greene, Beaumont, Fletcher, 
and Ben Jonson. Not less splendid, possibly even more 
important, was the scientific progress of Harvey and Francis 
Bacon (p. 179). 

For Further Reading. — Green’s History of the English People 
is the best general account for this period. Creighton’s and Beeslv’s 
lives of Elizabeth are good short biographies. 


Philip II 
of Spain 


The Dutch 
Rebellion 


CHAPTER III 

A CENTURY OF RELIGIOUS WARS 

SPAIN AND THE NETHERLANDS 

When Philip II succeeded his father (p. 145) as king of Spain 
and of the Sicilies, and master of the Netherlands, he was the 
most powerful and most absolute monarch in Europe. The 
Spanish infantry were the finest soldiery in the world. The 
Spanish navy was the unquestioned mistress of the ocean 
Each year the great “gold fleet” filled Philip’s coffers from 
the exhaustless wealth of the Americas. In 1580 the ruling 
family in Portugal died out, and that throne was seized by Philip 
— by virtue of a relationship to the extinct family. 1 Thus 
Portugal’s East India empire fell to Spain, and the Spanish 
boast that the sun never set upon Spanish dominions became 
literal fact. Philip himself was a plodding, cautious toiler, 
who worked like a clerk day after day in a bare room with L 
table and two stiff' chairs. He was despotic, cruel, unscrupu¬ 
lous, ambitious, and an ardent Catholic. 

Charles V had disregarded the old liberties of the Netherlands 
(p. 125) and had set up the Inquisition in that country with . 
ng itful consequences. Protestant writers used to claim that 
rom fifty thousand to one hundred thousand men and women 
were burned, strangled, or buried alive within the Netherlands 
urmg C harles’ reign. These numbers appear to be mere 
guesses; but the actual facts were horrible. Still the great 
majority of the people had been attached to Charles as their 
native sovereign and had felt a warm loyalty to his government. 

l ip continued all his father’s abuses, without possessing any 
of his redeeming qualities in Dutch eyes. He was a foreign 

1 Portugal reestablished her independence, by revolt, in 1640 

166 


RISE OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 


167 


master not a Hollander by birth as Charles had been — 
and he ruled from a distance and through Spanish officers. 
Finally, Protestant and Catholic nobles joined in demands for 
reform and especially that they might be ruled by officers from 
their own people. 

Philip s reply was to send the stern Spanish general, Alva, 
with a veteran Spanish army, to enforce submission. iHva’s 
council is known as the Council of Blood. It declared almost 
the whole population guilty of rebellion, and deserving of death 
with confiscation of goods. Alva proceeded to enforce this 
atrocious sentence by butchering great numbers — especially 
of the wealthy classes — and in 1568 a revolt began. 

The struggle between the little disunited provinces and the huge 
world-empire lasted forty years. In the beginning the conflict 
was for political liberty, but it soon became also a religious 
struggle. It was waged with an exasperated and relentless 
fury that made it a byword for ferocity even in that brutal 
age. City after city was given up to indiscriminate rapine 
and massacre, wdth deeds of horror indescribable. 

Over against this dark side stands the stubborn heroism of 
the Dutch people, hardly matched in history, — a heroism 
which saved not themselves only, but also the cause of Prot¬ 
estantism and of political liberty for the world, and made 
their little spot of sea-rescued land a true “holy land” to all 
who love freedom. 

William, Prince of Orange, was the central hero of the conflict. 
Because he foiled his enemies so often by wisely keeping his plans 
to himself, he is known as William the Silent; and his persistency 
and statesmanship have fitly earned him the name “the Dutch 
Washington.” Again and again, he seemed to be crushed; but 
from each defeat he snatched a new chance for victory. 

The turning point of the war was the relief of Leyden (1574). 
For many months the city had been closely besieged. The 
people had devoured the cats and rats and were dying grimly 
of starvation. Once they murmured, but the heroic burgo¬ 
master (mayor) shamed them, declaring they might have his 


Alva’s 
Council 
of Blood 


William 
of Orange 


The Relief 
of Leyden 


168 


THE RELIGIOUS WARS 


>odv to eat, but while he lived they should never surrender 
to the Spanish butchers. All attempts to relieve the perishing 
town had failed. But fifteen miles away, on the North Sea 
rode a Dutch fleet with supplies. Then William the Silent cut 
the dikes and let in the ocean on the land. Over wide districts 
the prosperity of years was engulfed in ruin; but the waves 
swept also over the Spanish camp, and upon the invading sea 
e ' | e ievlng shl P s rode t0 the city gates. Dutch liberty was 


n memory of its heroic resistance, William offered 
Leyden exemption from taxes or the establishment of a 
university. The citizens finely chose the latter; and the 

most famous 

universities in Europe, arose to commemorate the city’s 


England 
aids Holland 


Never again was Spain so near success, though the war lasted 

rTard y< 'V' 84 ’ * & 

Silent-’but f ° Und M aSSaSSm t0 murder W ilham the 

the conffict. r Sreat antag ° nist Was l‘ ust ™dy to enter 

Holland had been fighting England’s battle as well as her 

Sand "e p f UtCh r ^ kePt PhiHp ’ from a ‘tackS 

England. Englishmen knew this; and, for years, hundreds 

armv DS SzT trr S ir^ h' 6 " fl ° Cking t0 j ° in the Dute h 

. • zabeth herself had many times helped the Dutch 
y secret supplies of money, and now in 1585 she sent a small 
nglish army to their aid. This was the immediate signal for 
the Spanish Armada; and the overthrow of Spain’s naval su¬ 
premacy y the splendid English sea dogs (p. 163) added tre 
mendously to Holland’s chances. True, the ten southern prov 

sut s N T!^ ds finaiiy gave up the ^rd 

in race and CathT ’• & T*" 06 ’ The y were largely French 
ace and Catholic in religion. Protestantism was now com¬ 
pletely stamped out in them. After this time, they are known 
as the Spanish Netherlands, and finally as modern Belgium 




RISE OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 


169 



the NETHERLANDS 

at the Truce of 1609 


SCALE OF MILES 


£hej?even United Provinces 

The Provinces Retained by Spain 


m EAS ' r 

[FRIESLAND 

| • Embden 


V(i HONING KSj? 

I f 


imlngen 


^erda^ 


. Delft 


itterdam 


ibet'Vs I V-S^vs' 


SCHOUWENj^ 

^yZlericmSi 


I. of wAlchetreIJ 
diddle® 

^ FlUHliil); 

^^PSSltP' 

^Ostendei 


Neusa 


Maastricht* 


W//X/A 

* Oambn^y 

—£L=l 


CHAMPAJfGJE 
































































170 


THE RELIGIOUS WARS 


Dutch 

Indepen¬ 

dence 


Holland’s 

splendid 

period 


Spain’s 

decay 


The seven northern provinces, — Dutch in blood and Prot¬ 
estant m religion, — maintained the conflict, and won their 
me ependence as The United Provinces, or the Dutch Republic 
though that independence was not formally recognized by 
Catholic Europe for half a century more. The government 
consisted of a representative “States General” and a “Stadt- 
older (President). The most important of the seven prov¬ 
inces was Holland, by whose name the union was often known 
ihe most marvelous feature of the struggle between the little 
utch state and Spam was that Holland grew wealthy during 
ie contest, although the stage of the desolating war. The 
utch drew their riches not from the wasted land, but from the 
sea; and during the war they plundered the possessions of Spain 
in the East Indies. The little republic built up a vast colonial 

Zd? H f ^ Spain ’ s naval supremacy had been 

engulfed with the Armada, the Dutch held almost a monopoly 

le tl „ tn f ° r aH Eur ° Pe - ° ne hundred d of 

eir three million people lived constantly upon the sea. 

Success m so heroic a war stimulated the people to a wonder- 

.ntellectual and industrial activity. Holland taught all 

Europe scientific agriculture and horticulture, as well as the 

:rs;;r g, “r;•'* «-—* •. ZZ 

rest of E ,° aVe PUt f ° rth more books than all the 

of Europe. Motley sums up this wonderful career, — 

liberty 16 Ch” 168 V WaS erected U P°“ the grave of 

liberty- But from the hand-breadth of territory called Hohand 

rises a power which wages eighty years’ warfare • wit^the most notent 

On the other hand, Spain sank rapidly into a second rate 

Morns tie e d big0t ’ ^ !nt ° exile the Christianized 

Moors the descendimts of those Mohammedans left behind 

W en the Moorish political power had been driven out. They 
1 Peace was not made, formally, until 1609. 


SPAIN’S DECAY 


171 


numbered more than half a million, — perhaps a twentieth of 
the entire population, — and they were the foremost agricul¬ 
turalists and almost the sole skilled artisans and manufacturers. 

Their pitiless expulsion inflicted a deadly blow upon the pros¬ 
perity of Spain. 

For a time the wealth she drew from America concealed her 
fall, and she continued to furnish money for the Catholic powers 
through the Thirty Years’ War (p. 174). But after the Armada 
she never played a great part in Europe, and, living on the plunder 
of the New World, she failed to develop the industrial life which 
alone could furnish a true prosperity. Moreover, the In¬ 
quisition steadily “sifted out the most flexible minds and the 
stoutest hearts,” until a once virile race sank into apathy and 
decay. 

One great service Spain had rendered Christendom just The Battle 
before England and Holland broke her power. For a genera- of Le P anto 
tion, Turkish fleets, almost unchecked, had ravaged the Chris¬ 
tian coasts of the Mediterranean, even burning villages far 
inland and sweeping off the peasants into captivity. Cyprus 
had fallen before their attack, and Malta had been saved only 
by the heroic resistance of the Knights of St. John. 1 Finally 
Spain, Venice, and the pope joined their naval strength, and in 
1571 the combined Christian fleet annihilated the great Turkish 
navy at Lepanto , on the Greek coast. Lepanto was the greatest 
naval battle the world had seen for eighteen hundred years — 
since the ancient wars between Romans and Carthaginians. 

Over six hundred ships engaged. The Turks lost thirty thou¬ 
sand men, and twelve thousand Christian rowers were freed 
from horrible slavery at the oar. The Turks never recovered 
naval importance, and indeed, the turning point of their power 
is often dated from this defeat. 

1 Read Prescott’s account of the siege of Malta in his Philip II, if avail¬ 
able. When driven from Asia, about 1300, the Knights of St. John (p. 93) 
removed to Rhodes and remained for centuries an outpost of Christendom 
in constant warfare with the Turk. Not long before Lepanto they had been 
expelled from Rhodes and had then fortified themselves anew upon the rocks 
of Malta. 


172 


THE RELIGIOUS WARS 


The Hugue¬ 
nots 


Guises and 
Bourbons 


The 

Massacre 
of Bartholo¬ 
mew 


WARS OF THE FRENCH HUGUENOTS 
The French Protestants were Calvinists, and are known as 
Huguenots.. By 1560, they counted one man out of twenty in 
the population; and (because Calvinism appealed by its logic 
mainly to intellectual people) their numbers were made up 
almost wholly from the nobles and the wealthy middle class of 
the towns. Francis I and his son, Henry II, persecuted the 
new faith, but not continuously enough to crush it. 

Henry was followed by his three sons, — Francis II, Charles 

IX, and Henry III, - all weak in body and in mind. During 

their reigns (1559-1589), power was disputed between two groups 

of great lords. Each was closely related to the failing royal 

amily, and each hoped to place a successor upon the throne 

One of these groups was the Catholic Guise family; the other 

was the Protestant Bourbons, who counted as their leaders the 

King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde. In the background 

was the chief figure of all, the crafty and cruel Queen-mother, 

Catherine of Medici, who played off one party against the other 

m whatever way might best promote her own control over her 
feeble sons. 

War between the two factions opened in 1562 and lasted, with 
bi icf truces, to 1598. Even more than the other struggles of the 
period, it was marked by assassinations and treacheries, which 
struck down almost every leader on either side. The most 

orrible event of this character was the Massacre of St Bar- 
thoiomew (August 24, 1572). 

An honest attempt had just been made to establish a lasting 
peace. A marriage had been arranged between the sister of 
mg Charles IX and the young Henry, King of Navarre (a 
small border state on the south of France); and, too, the grand- 
est Frenchman of the age) the Protestant Coligny, became one 
ot Charles chief counselors, and soon won remarkable influence 
over him. But Catherine of Medici had not expected to see 
her own power over her son so superseded, and now she joined 
the Guises m secret attacks upon Coligny 

An attempt to assassinate Coligny' failed, and the king 


THE HUGUENOTS 


173 


threatened vengeance for the attack. Then the conspirators, 
co save themselves, played upon his religious bigotry with a 
plot to cleanse France from heresy at one blow; and his con¬ 
sent was finally won for a general massacre of the Huguenots. 
Large numbers of that sect were assembled in Paris to witness 
the marriage of their chief; and at the appointed moment, the 
mob of Paris bathed in Huguenot blood. Ten thousand victims 
fell in France. 

Henry of Navarre escaped from the massacre, and, on the death 
of the French king, in 1589, he was the heir to the throne. But 
he did not become king of France, as Henry IV, until after four 
years more of civil war with the Catholic League. 

Philip II of Spain aided the League. He hoped to seat a 
puppet on the French throne and virtually add that country 
to the realms of Spain. But in Henry of Navarre he met the 
third of the three great leaders on whom his imperial schemes 
went to wreck. Henry drove the Spanish army in shameful 
rout from France in the dashing cavalry battle of Ivry. Then, 
to secure Paris, which he had long besieged, he accepted Ca¬ 
tholicism, declaring lightly that “so fair a city” was “well worth 
a mass.” His purpose, of course, was not only to secure the 
capital, but also to give peace to his distracted country. 

In 1598 Henry’s Edict of Nantes established toleration for 
the Huguenots. (1) They were granted full equality before the 
law. Before this, the forms of oaths required in law courts had 
been such as a Protestant could not take, and therefore a 
Huguenot could not sue to recover property. (2) They were to 
have perfect liberty of conscience in private, and to enjoy the 
privilege of public worship except in the cathedral cities. And 
(3) certain towns were handed over to them, to hold with their 
own garrisons, as a security for their rights. This last measure 
was no doubt needful, but it carried with it a political danger: 
it set up a state within a state, and hindered the unity of France. 

Henry IV proved one of the greatest of French kings, and he 
was one of the most loved. With his sagacious minister, the 
Duke of Sully, he set himself to restore prosperity to desolated 


Henry or 
Navarre 


Becomes 
Henry IV 


Edicts 
of Nantes 


Henry 

and 

Sully 


174 


THE RELIGIOUS WARS 


Cardinal 

Richelieu 


France. One of his treasured sayings was, that if he lived, 
the poorest peasant should have a fowl in the pot on a Sunday.’ 
Roads and canals were built; new trades were fostered; and 
under the blessings of a firm government, the industry of the 
rench people once more with marvelous rapidity removed the 
evil results of the long strife.. In 1610 Henry was assassinated 
by a half-insane Catholic fanatic. 

Henry s son, Louis XIII, was a boy of nine years. Anarchy 
again raised its head; but France was saved by the commanding 
genius of Cardinal Richelieu, who became the chief minister of 
the young king. Richelieu was a sincere patriot, and, though an 
earnest Catholic, his statesmanship was guided by political, not 
by religious, motives. He crushed the great nobles and he 
waged war upon the Huguenots to deprive them of their gar¬ 
risoned towns, which menaced the unity of France. But when 
he had captured their cities and held the Huguenots at his 
mercy he kept toward them in full the other pledges of the 
Edict of Nantes. He aided the German Protestants against the 
Catholic emperor, in the religious war that was going on in 
Germany and so secured a chance to seize territory from the 
Empire for France. To make the king supreme in France, 
he waged war against the Protestants within the nation • to 

SJs :zz eme in Europe ’ he waged war/or the p — 

THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR IN GERMANY 11618-1648) 

i C n°“ y s J c “ e f 1; Y rt°\ G w man Pl '° testants ’ the two immediate 
after the successors of Charles V on the imperial throne were liberal in 

as* 2r-. . to jgriz 

Mk ' Y'“ V p '“' (r-1«>, tit.... 

faith gamed ground rapidly. It spread over much of South 
ermanj and held almost complete possession of Bohemia 
he home of the ancient Hussite reform. Strife was incessant 
threatening, however. The Hapsburgs strove to restrict ProG 
estantism in their dominions, while the Protestant princes 
&y ematlcall y evaded the promise to restore church lands. 


THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR 


175 


This period of uneasy peace in Germany is just the period 
of the religious wars in the Netherlands and in France. Then, 
in 1G18, the last of the great religious wars came in Germany — 
a century after Luther posted his theses at Wittenberg. It is 
known as the Fhirty 1 ears’ War (1618-1648), and it was the most 
destructive and terrible war in all history until the World War. 

The signal for the struggle was an attempt of Protestant 
Bohemia to make itself independent of the Catholic Hapsburg 
Empire. Bohemian independence lasted only a few weeks; 
but this was long enough to call all Germany into two armed 
camps. The Protestant German princes, however, showed them¬ 
selves disunited, timid, and incapable; and, had the war been 
left to Germany, a Catholic victory would soon have been 
assured. But all over Europe sincere and religious Protestants 
felt deeply and truly that the war against the Catholic Hapshurgs 
was their own war — much as all free peoples have felt in the 
World War when liberty was imperiled by Hohenzollern autoc¬ 
racy. First Denmark (1625-1629) and then Sweden (1630) 
entered the field in behalf of the Protestant cause; and at last 
(1635-1648) Catholic France under Richelieu threw its weight 
also against the Hapsburgs who so long had ringed France about 
with hostile arms. 

The war was marked by the careers of four great generals, — 
Tilly and Wallenstein on the imperial side, and Gustavus 
Adolphus, king of Sweden, “the Lion of the North,” and Mans- 
feld, on the side of the Protestants. Gustavus was at once 
great and admirable; but he fell at the battle of Liitzen (1632), 
in the moment of victory; and thereafter the struggle was as 
dreary as it was terrible. Mansfeld and Wallenstein from 
the first deliberately adopted the policy of making the war pay, 
by supporting their armies everywhere upon the country; but 
during the short career of Gustavus, his blond Swede giants 
were held in admirable discipline, with the nearest approach to a 
regular commissariat that had been known since Roman times. 

Gustavus’ success, too, was due largely to new tactics. 
Muskets, fired by a “match” and discharged from a “rest,” 


Bohemia 

rebels 


Wallenstein 

and 

Gustavus 

Adolphus 


176 


THE RELIGIOUS WARS 


had become an important portion of every army; but troops 
weie still massed in the old fashion that had prevailed when 
pikemen were the chief infantry. Gustavus was the first 
gener al to adapt the arrangement of his troops to the new 
weapons. 

^German 11 ^ le ca * am ^ es the war brought were monstrous. It was a 
ermany kj agting ru ; nj f rom w Ydch Germany had not fully recovered in 
the middle of the nineteenth century. Season by season, for a 
generation of human life, armies of ruthless freebooters, harried 
the land with fire and sword. The peasant found that he toiled 
only to feed robbers and to draw them to outrage and torture 
his family; so he ceased to labor, and became himself robber or 
camp-follower. Half the population and two thirds the movable 
property of Germany were swept away. In many large districts, 
the facts were worse than this average. The Duchy of Wurtem- 
berg had fifty thousand people left out of five hundred thousand. 
In Bohemia, thirty thousand happy villages had shrunk to 
six thousand miserable ones, and the rich promise of the great 
University of Prague was ruined. Everywhere populous cities 
shriveled into hamlets; and for miles upon miles, former ham¬ 
lets were the lairs of wolf packs. Not until 1850 did some 

sections of Germany again contain as many homesteads and 
cattle as in 1618. 

Even more destructive was the result upon industry and 
character. Whole trades, with their long-inherited skill, 
passed from the memory of men. 1 Land tilled for centuries 
became wilderness. And men became savages. The genera¬ 
tion that survived the war came to manhood without schools 
or churches or law or orderly industry. 

Westphalia Th * War was closed b « vthe Peace of Westphalia. This treaty 
was drawn up by a congress of ambassadors from nearly every 
European power. It contained three distinct classes of stipu¬ 
lations : provisions for religious peace in Germany; territorial 


1 An instance of this is the wonderful old German wood carving. A 
genuine old piece of German cabinetwork is easily placed before 1618, 
because the war simply wiped out the skill and the industry. 






















































































PEACE OF WESTPHALIA 177 

rewards for France and Sweden; and provisions to secure the 
independence of the German princes against the Empire. 

1 . The principle of the Peace of Augsburg was reaffirmed and 
extended. Each sovereign prince in Germany was to choose his 
religion; and his subjects were to have three years to conform 
to his choice or to withdraw from his realm. 

Many of the South German Protestants were then driven 
into exile by their Catholic lords. This was the first cause 
of the coming to America of the “Pennsylvania Dutch .” 
Most of the German immigration to America before the 
Revolution was connected with this expulsion or with the 
devastation of the Rhine provinces a little later by Louis 
XIV of France (p. 232). 

2. Sweden, which was already a great Baltic power, extend¬ 
ing around both the east and west shores of that sea (p. 55), 
secured also much of the south coast : Pomerania — with the 
mouths of the Oder, Elbe, and Weser — was the payment she 
received for her part in the war. This gave Sweden control 
over German commerce. France annexed most of Alsace, with 
some fortresses on the German bank of the Rhine. The Con¬ 
gress also expressly recognized the independence of Switzerland 
and of the Dutch Provinces. 

3. The Empire lost more than mere territory. Various 
political rearrangements within Germany made clear its weakness. 
The separate states were given the right to form alliances with 
one another or even with foreign powers. The imperial Diet 
became avowedly a gathering of ambassadors for discussion, but 
not for government: no state was to be bound by decisions there 
without its own consent. 

The religious wars filled a century — from the struggle between 
the German princes and Charles V (1546) to the Peace of West¬ 
phalia (1648). They left the Romance 1 South Catholic, and the 

1 Romance is a term applied to those European peoples and languages 
closely related to the old Roman rule — like the Italians, Spanish, and 
French. 


Conditions 
at the close 
of the Re¬ 
ligious Wars 


Advances 
in physical 
science 
in the 
age of 
Religious 
Wars 


Copernicus 
and the 
solar 
system 


178 THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS 

Teutonic North Protestant. Politically, France emerged, under 
the Bourbon branch of the Gapetians, stronger and more united 
than ever, quite equal in power to any two states of Europe. 
England and Sweden had both risen into “ Great Powers.” 
Tw o new fedei al republics had been added to the European 
family of nations, — Switzerland and the United Provinces; 
and the second of these was one of the leading “Powers.” The 
danger of a universal Hapsburg empire was forever gone. 
Spain, the property of one Hapsburg branch, had sunk from 
the first place in Europe to a third-rate power. The Holy 
Roman Empire, the realm of the other branch, was an open 
sham. Far to the east loomed indistinctly a huge and grow¬ 
ing Russian state. 

This age of wars and persecution in religion, almost without 
notice at the time, was also an age of advance in science, 
which was to change the life of men and women more than the 
wars of Wallenstein and Gustavus. Indeed it was just at this 
time that what we call the scientific method of investigation and 
experiment was really born into the world. 

All men had believed the earth the center of the universe, 
with sun and stars revolving around it. But in 1543 a Polish 
astronomer, Copernicus, published a book proving that the 
earth was only one member of a solar system which had the 
sun for a center. This discovery did more than revolutionize 
astronomy : it revolutionized thought about man’s place in the 
world, by opening up such immensities of worlds and such 
possibilities of other forms of life as had never before been 
dreamed of. ( olumbus, half a century before, had discovered 
a “New World” : Copernicus revealed a new universe. 

From fear of persecution, Copernicus had kept his discovery 
to himself for many years - until just before his death, when 
the “religious wars” were just beginning. Those wars them¬ 
selves checked study and discovery in parts of Europe; and 
persecution, for a while, repressed scientific discoveries in 
Catholic countries. At the opening of the Renaissance (p. 128) 


PROGRESS IN SCIENCE 


179 


the popes had been the foremost patrons of the new learning; 
but now the reaction against the Protestant revolt had thrown 
control into conservative hands, and the church used its tre¬ 
mendous powers to stifle new scientific discoveries. 

Still much was done. In Elizabeth’s day in England, the 
physician, William Harvey, rediscovered the circulation of the 
blood (p. 148) and so made possible modern medicine. And in 
Italy Galileo discovered the laws of falling bodies and of the 
pendulum (as they are now taught in our textbooks on physics), 
invented the thermometer, and, taking a hint from a Dutch 
plaything, constructed the first real telescope. With this, in 
1610, he demonstrated the truth of Copernicus’ teachings by 
showing the “phases” of the planet Venus in its revolution 
about the sun. True, Galileo was summoned to Rome by 
the pope, imprisoned, and forced publicly to recant his teaching 
that the earth moved around the sun; but, as he rose from his 
knees, he whispered to a friend — “ None the less, it does 
move.” 

And more important than any specific discovery about 
sun or the human body was the discovery of a new way of 
finding out truth about the world. For centuries scholars 
had tried to learn only by reading ancient authorities, and per¬ 
haps by reasoning a little further, in their own minds, upon 
what these authorities taught. But the new discoveries had 
been made in another way; and now, Francis Bacon, in Eng¬ 
land, set forth eloquently the necessity of experiment to discover 
new facts. And before 1700, in Italy, France, and England, 
great scientific societies were founded, to encourage scientific 
investigation. 

Still for more than a century, these new discoveries reached 
a very small part of even the most enlightened nations. The 
average Puritan, for instance, who settled Massachusetts, 
twenty years after Galileo, believed the earth a flat surface 
lighted by sun and stars that moved around it. Francis Bacon 
himself, almost a century after Copernicus, never knew that the 
earth revolved around the sun ; and, Englishman though he was. 


Harvey 

and 

the circu¬ 
lation of 
the blood 


Galileo 


The 

method of 
experiment 


180 


THE AGE OF RELIGIOUS WARS 


he had never heard of Harvey’s discoveries — and believed that 

an ape s heart, worn on a man’s breast, would make him brave. 

A. new truth, in those times, did not get the world’s attention 
in a day. 

For Further Reading. — England is covered by previous refer¬ 
ences. It is not worth while for the student to read on the Wars, except 
or some brilliant story like Willert’s Henry of Navarre, and for Holland. 
For that country, see The Student's Motley, an admirable and brief con¬ 
densation of Motley’s great history of the Dutch Republic. Source 
material can be found in Robinson’s Readings. 


EXERCISES 

1. Dates for rapid drill: 1520, 1588, 1648. 

2. Review the Reformation as a whole in each country to the close of 
the religious wars. 


PART II 

ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH OENTUEY 


CHAPTER IV 

ENGLISH INDUSTRY IN 1600 

The century and a half from 1450 to 1600 (filled in England 
by the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor reigns) was a period 
of tremendous change, intellectual, religious, political, and 
economic. 

(1) The Renaissance created a new intellectual life, with 
the spontaneous energy and the abounding self-reliance that 
we associate with the names of Shakespere and Elizabeth and 
Raleigh. 

(2) The reformation introduced new church organization 
and new religious feeling. 

(3) On the ruins of the two chief political forces of earlier 
times, — feudalism and the church, — the sovereigns built 
up a “New Monarchy” (p. 113). 

(4) Industry was revolutionized in town and country. 

The first three changes have been treated. The industrial 
change was the most fundamental of all. It has been referred 
to several times and we will now look at it as a whole. 

The golden age for English peasants was the half century 
from 1450 to 1500, just after the disappearance of villeinage. 
The small farmer lived in rude abundance; and even the farm 
laborer had his cow, sheep, or geese on the common, his four- 
acre patch of garden about his cabin, and good wages for his 
labor on the landlord’s fields. Sir John Fortescue (p. 112) 
boasts of this prosperity, as compared with that of the French 
peasantry: “They [English peasants] drink no water, unless 

181 


Changes in 
England, 
1450-1600 


The change 
in English 
rural 
industry 




182 


ENGLAND IN 1600 


The “in¬ 
closures ” 
after 1500 
A.D. 


at times by way of penance. They are fed in great abundance 
with all kinds of flesh and fish. They are clothed in good 
woolens. . . . Every one, according to his rank, hath all 
things needful to make life easy and happy.” 

The large landlords had been relatively less prosperous. 
Since the rise of their old laborers out of villeinage, they were 
“land-poor.” They paid high wages, while, under the waste¬ 
ful common-field system, crops were small (p. 68). 

But by 1500 a change had begun which enriched the land¬ 
lords and cruelly depressed the peasants. This change was the 
process of “inclosures” for sheep raising. There was a steady 
demand for wool at good prices to supply the Flemish markets 
(p. 124), and enterprising landlords began to raise sheep instead 
of grain. Large flocks could be cared for by a few hands, so 
that the high wages mattered less; and profits proved so en¬ 
ticing that soon there was a mad rush into the new industry. 

But sheep-raising called for large tracts of land. It was pos¬ 
sible only for the great landlords; and even these were obliged 
to hedge in their share of the common “fields.” Therefore, 
as far as possible, they turned out small tenants whose holdings 
interfered with such “inclosures,” and often they inclosed also 
the woodlands and meadows, in disregard of ancient rights of 
common pasture. Sir Thomas More, in his Utopia (p. 134), 
lamented these conditions bitterly : 

“A careless and unsatiable cormorant may compass about and 
inclose many thousand acres within one pale, and the husbandmen be 
thrust out of their own; or else by fraud, or violent oppression, or by 
wrongs and injuries, they be so worried that they be compelled to sell . . . 
They [the landlords] throw down houses; they pluck down towns [vil¬ 
lages] and leave nothing standing but only the church, to be made a 
sheep-house. 


Then More gives this piteous picture of the peasants who 
have been driven from their homes : 

By one means or another, either by hook or by crook, they must 
needs depart poor wretched souls — men, women, husbands, wives, 
fatherless children, widows, woeful mothers with young babes AH 


DECAY OF THE YEOMANRY 


183 


their household stuff . . . suddenly thrust out, they be constrained to 
sell it for a thing ol nought. And when they have wandered till that be 
spent, what can they then else do but steal, and then justly, pardy, be 
hanged, or else go about begging? And yet then also they be cast into 
prison as vagabonds, because they go about and work not, — whom no 
man will set to work though they never so willingly proffer themselves 
thereto.” 

Other statesmen, too, bewailed that sheep should take the 
place of the yeomanry who had won Crecy and Poitiers, and 
who, Bacon said, were also “the backbone of the revenue”; 
and the government made many attempts to check inclosures. 
But law availed nothing. Nor did peasant risings and riots 
(p. 155) help. On the other hand, Henry VIII’s transfer 
of monastery lands (a fifth of England) to greedy private land¬ 
lords increased the inclosure movement tremendously; and it 
went on until the profits of sheep-raising and grain-raising 
found a natural level. 

This came to pass before 1600. The wool market was sup¬ 
plied, and the growth of town populations raised the price of 
grain. These towns, as we shall explain (p. 184), became the 
basis for a new sort of prosperity for England, and the land 
changes created a wealthy landed gentry, to take a glittering 
part in society and politics. 

But this new “prosperity” had a somber background. Half 
of the villages in England had lost heavily in population, and 
many had been wholly swept away. Great numbers of the 
peasants, driven from their homes, became “sturdy beggars” 
(tramps); and all laborers were thrust down to a lower standard 
of life, because the cost of food and clothing rose twice as fast 
as wages. 

More than before even, rural England had become a land¬ 
lord’s country. One reason why wages stayed so low was that 
the gentleman “justices of the peace,” appointed by the crown, 
were given power to fix wages for farm work. And when tramps 
spread terror through the rural districts, the justices hung them 
in batches. In fifty years, in the glorious day of Shakespere 
and Elizabeth, seventy thousand “beggars” were executed. 


Passing of 
the free 
farmers 


184 


ENGLAND IN 1600 


Growth of 
manu¬ 
factures 


And of 
commerce 


These conditions explain in part why so many English¬ 
men were eager to go to America. John Winthrop, the 
great Puritan leader of the Massachusetts colony (himself 
from the prosperous landlord class), declared “England 
grows weary of her inhabitants, so as man who is the most 
precious of God’s creatures, is here more vile and base 
than the earth we tread upon and of less prize among us 
than a horse or an ox.” 

Meantime, England was becoming a manufacturing country. 
From the time of the Yorkist kings, the sovereigns had made 
the towns their special care. Elizabeth welcomed gladly the 
skilled workmen driven from the Netherlands by the Spanish 
wars, and from France by the persecution of the Huguenots. 
Colonies of these foreign artisans were given their special 
quarter in many an English city, with many favors, and were 
encouraged to set up there their manufactures, of which Eng¬ 
land had previously known almost nothing. Soon, English 
wool was no longer sold abroad. It was worked up at home. 
These new manufactures gave employment to great numbers 

of workmen, and finally absorbed the classes driven from 
the land. 

This manufacturing fostered commerce. By 1600, England 
was sending, not merely raw materials as formerly, but her 
finished products, to distant markets. “Merchants” 1 in¬ 
creased m wealth and in numbers, so as to form a new class in 
society. In 1350 a royal inquiry could find a list of only 169 
important merchants in England. In 1601 more than twenty 
times that number were engaged in the Holland trade alone. 

By purchase of land and by royal gifts from the confiscated 
church property, the members of this class rose into the new 

gentry, and their capital and energy helped to restore prosperity 
to the land. ^ J 


Growth of 
manu¬ 
factures 


And of 
commerce 



1 A “merchant” was a trader who sent goods to a foreign country. 

mOS WOro T/a r>rvi a rl 4- . . J _ _ .M t* • _ _ 


country. Com- 


or India, or other distant parts of 
lant owned a considerable fleet of 
;onio, in The Merchant of Venice). 


GROWTH OF COMMERCE 


185 


The rapid growth of manufactures brought with it a change 
in the position of the workers. The old gild system broke 
down in England and was replaced by the so-called “domestic 
system” of manufacturing. The work was still carried on by 
hand, and mostly in the master’s house; but the masters de¬ 
manded and finally secured liberty from gild control. This 
greater freedom permitted the more rapid introduction of im¬ 
proved methods. 


The • 

“ Domestic 
system ” 


The English 
Church in 
1600 


Puritanism 


“ Low- 
church ” 
non-con¬ 
formists 


CHAPTER V 

PURITAN ENGLAND —UNDER THE FIRST STUARTS 

At every moment some one country, more than any other, represents the 
future and the welfare of mankind. — Emerson. 

For two generations after 1600, the burning questions in Enq - 
lS 1 'P°} lhcs and religion had to do with Puritanism . Within the 
established Episcopal church the dominant party had strong 
lgh-church leanings. It wished to restore . so far as 
possible the ceremonial of the old Catholic church, and it 
taught that the government of the church by bishops had been 
neetly ordained by God. This party was ardently supported 
by the royal head of the church ” - Elizabeth, James, Charles, 

in urn; but it was engaged in constant struggle with a large, 
aggressive Puritan party. 6 

Puritanism was much more than a religious sect. It was an 
ardent aspiration for reform in many lines. In politics it stood 
01 an advance in popular rights; in conduct, for stricter and 
lgher morality; in theology, for the stern doctrines of Calvin • 
m church matters, for an extension of the “reformation” that 
had cut off the English church from Rome. 

Two groups of Puritans stood in sharp opposition to each 
other, the influential “Low-church” element within the 
c urch, and the despised Separatists outside of it. The Low- 
churchmen had no wish to separate church and state. They 
wanted one national church-a Low-church church-to which 
every o y wit tun England should be forced to conform. They 
esired also to make the church a more far-reaching moral 
power. To that end, they aimed to introduce more preaching 
into the service, to simplify ceremonies, and to abolish alto¬ 
gether certain customs which they called “ Romish ” — the 

186 


LOW-CHURCH AND SEPARATISTS 


187 


use of the surplice, and of the ring in marriage, of the sign of 
the cross in baptism, and (some of them) of the prayer-book. 
Most of them did not care as yet to change radically the estab¬ 
lished form of church government; but they looked upon all 
church machinery not as divinely instituted, as the High- 
churchmen did, but as of human origin. Some of them had 
begun, indeed, to speak with scant respect of bishops, and there 
was a subdivision among them inclined to the Presbyterian church 
government, as it existed in Scotland. It is this large Low- 
church branch of Puritanism with which in the seventeenth 
century English history is mainly concerned. 

The Independents (or “Puritans of the Separation”) believed 
that there should be no national church, but that each local 
religious organization should be a little democratic society, 
wholly separate from the civil government, and even independent 
of other churches. These Independents were the Puritans of 
the Puritans. They were the germs of later Congregation¬ 
alism. To all other sects they seemed mere anarchists in 
religion. Elizabeth persecuted them savagely, and her suc¬ 
cessor continued that policy. Some of the Independent churches 
fled to Holland; and one of them, from Scrooby in northern 
England, after staying several years at Leyden, founded Plym¬ 
outh in America (the “Pilgrims” of 1620),—and so pointed 
the w T ay for the larger Low-church emigration to Massachusetts 
Bay ten years later. 

Political liberty in England had fallen low under the Tudors. 
True, no law T could be made without consent of Parliament, 
and that body controlled all new grants of money. But the 
monarch (or his ministers) prepared nearly all measures that 
came before Parliament; he could veto any act of Parliament; 
and, after a law had been made, he sometimes nullified it by 
special proclamations. Moreover, the monarch had so many 
ways of injuring a private man that it was extremely hazardous 
for any one persistently to oppose him. 

But, after all, Henry VIII and Elizabeth had ruled absolutely , 
only because they made use of constitutional forms (p. 113) and 


The 

Separatists 


Political 
conditions 
in 1600 


188 


PURITAN ENGLAND 


The 

“ divine- 
right ” 
Stuart 
kings 


And the 

English 

people 


England 
the world’s 
hope 


because they possessed a shrewd tact which taught them just 
W ere to stop. Moreover, toward the close of Elizabeth’s 
reign, when foreign perils were past, the tone of Parliament beqan 
to rise again. Men spoke boldly of checks upon the royal 
power; and Parliament and the courts forced the great queen 
to give up her pet practice of granting trade monopolies to 
er avorites. It was plain to keen observers that only the 
reverence for Elizabeth’s age and sex, and the gratitude due 
her for her great services to the kingdom, held off an open 
clash between sovereign and Parliament. Upon her death, 
the clash began, — to last eighty-five years. 

kin^ h of b ?\r S ^ CCeeded ty JamCS 1 (JameS Stuart )> alread y 

f' g •! , Scotl “ d (footnote > P- 1-53). James was learned and 
of F * eC ’ t e y lsest f °ol 111 Christendom,” as Henry IV 

rthU’ofV !r He believed Sincere 'y the “ divine 
8 kings. That is, he believed that the king, as God’s 

trolled bvT S H 0UrCe ^ and C ° U ' d not himself be con- 
prove thk He i “ P ° mP ° US and tiresome book to 

solutism hut th C i 1S S ° n f ft6r blm n0t ° nly P racticed - ab- 

ZTT’ 7 ° prmChed k on every occasion. They 

were despots on principle. y 

beneficenf G !*** gr ° Wing r6Stive Under the d °aked, 

it rose I" fi ° f the Str0ng Tudors : "aturally 

t rose m fierce opposition against the noisy, needless and „n- 

thefet n f SInS tyranny ° f the weak Stuarts. From 1603, when 
son If James mounted the throne, until 1688, when his grand- 
on the second James, ignominiously ran away from it Ena 

land mas engaged in strife between this “divine right” of’ Mn s 
and the right of the people. ^ ^ 

Through all that seventeenth century, too, this little patch 

Ill oTherT 3 I ' a f remaining battle ground for liberty, it 
all other important states, - in Spain, in France, in Austria 

manfanff 1 f V f n , landS ’ “ the petty P ri ™PaIities of Ger- 
V d Italy, despotism was supreme. In England both 

rt 7S2 ■?,*“ *••— s «“ «£*!£ 

ei G n, am ashamed that my cousins of 


THE “DIVINE RIGHT” OF KINGS 


189 


France and Spain should have completed what I have scarce 
begun.” And at the same time a patriot exclaimed in ex¬ 
hortation to his party, “ England is the last country which 
retains her ancient liberties; let them not perish now.” 

The student should note, at this point, that the doctrine 
and practice of “ divine-right ” autocracy, which England 
never accepted, remained dominant on the continent of 
Europe until less than a hundred years ago, and that it 
has disappeared from Germany only with the World War. 
Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, about 1900, repeatedly 
stated the doctrine in words strangely like those of James 
in England three centuries before — and Germany accepted 
them with applause. 

There were, as yet, no organized political parties. But there 
was a “court party/’ devoted to the royal power, consisting of 
most of the nobles and of the “ High-church ” clergy, and an 
opposition “country party,” consisting of the mass of country 
gentry, some Puritan nobles, and the Puritan element generally. 

Now the issue between the two was promptly stated. In the 
first few we> ks of his new sovereignty, James gave several 
practical proofs of his disregard for law and of his arbitrary 
temper. On his royal entry from Scotland, he ordered a thief 
to be hanged without trial; and when he summoned his first 
parliament he commanded that contested elections should be 
settled, not by Parliament as formerly, but by his courts. And 
then, in a famous utterance, he summed up his theory: “As 
it is atheism and blasphemy in a creature to dispute what God 
can do, so it is presumption and high contempt in a subject to 
question what a king can do.” This became the tone of the 
court party. 

When Parliament assembled, it took the first chance to an¬ 
swer these new claims. The king, as usual, opened Parlia¬ 
ment with a “speech from the throne.” As usual, the Speaker 
of the Commons replied; but, in place of the usual thanks to 
his majesty, he reminded James bluntly of his limited powers. 


Struggle 
between 
James I and 
Parliament 


190 


PURITAN ENGLAND 


New laws,” said the Speaker, “cannot be instituted, nor im- 

co e nlt 7 r ° rmed . ' • • by any other P° wer *an this high 

o Parliament. The Commons backed up this speech 
y a long paper, setting forth popular rights in detail and as- 
sertmg that the privileges of Englishmen were their inheritance 
no less than their lands and goods/’ 

James seldom called Parliaments after this, and only when 

he had to have money. Whenever lip rlirJ ii 

z. j T) i . * y vnenever lie did, there was wranqhnq 

between Parliament and king. U y 

Fortunately the regular royal revenues had never been 
much increased, while the rise in prices and the wider duties 
of government called for more money than in former times 
oth Elizabeth and James were poor. Elizabeth, however had 
been economical and thrifty. James was careless and waste¬ 
ful and could not get along without new taxes. 

I hus Parliament was able to hold its own. It insisted stub 
bornly on its control of taxation, on freedom of speed and on 

of 1621 Ihe’cC aCh the kmg S ministers ' In the Parliament 
1, the Commons expressed dissatisfaction with a mar 

ge that James had planned for his son Charles with a Span 
sh princess. James roughly forbade them to liscuss such 
high matters of state.” “Let us resort tn „ „ h 

one Of the members, “and thenlnS 
The outcome of the consideration was a resolution, “( 1 ) that 

tli 6r leS ’ , pnV1 6geS ’ aIlfl jurisdictions of Parliament are 
the ancient and undoubted birthright jo , • 1 are 

and th.t * 1 . , Dlr flight of the subjects of England • 

the I t , ? , U ° US Urgent affairs concerning the kW 

*• nr -s 

, . [ J mat m tlle handling and proceeding n f 

businesses, every member of the Commons 1 r , * 

m,,k ..... bH. s Z Z. ■' ' ,rnh * 

“■ W »< ft. ~o«l. ...I dlaolved Parli.- 
ment. Put Charles was personally insulted hv tl. c 

court, where he had gone to visit the ^ Spamsh 

8 to visit the princess; and in the 


SIR JOHN ELIOT 


191 


last year of James’ life the prince succeeded in forcing him into 
war with Spain to the boundless joy of the nation. 

In March, 162o, in the midst of shame and disgrace because of The early 
mismanagement of the war, James died. In May, Charles I Parli aments 
met his first Parliament. He quarreled with it at once, dissolved ° f Charl6S 1 
it, and turned to an eager prosecution of the war, trusting to 
win the nation to his side by glorious victory. Ignominious 

failure, instead, forced him to meet his second Parliament in 
1626. 

It is now that Sir John Eliot stands forth as leader of the 
patriots. Eliot is the “first great Commoner.” In her earlier 
struggles with her kings, England had depended upon nobles 
for leaders. The Tudor monarchs had begun to use members 
from the rising gentry as ministers of the crown. Now one of 
this class was to lead the opposition to the crown. 


The significance of this lay not merely in the greater 
liberality of thought among the gentry, as compared with 
the nobles, but even more in their greater numbers. In 
earlier struggles, when a popular leader fell, like Simon of 
Montfort, there was no one to take his place, and the cause 
fell. But in this seventeenth century, an Eliot, a Hampden, 
a Pym, each found, at need, a worthy successor, or group 
of successors, to take up the work. 


Eliot was a Cornish gentleman, thirty-three years of age, Sir John 
courtly in manner, ardent and poetic in temper. His mind EUot 
was enriched by all the culture of the “New Learning,” and 
afterward in weary years of imprisonment he found consola¬ 
tion in his Tacitus, Livy, Epictetus, and Seneca. He was an 
athlete and a courtier, and at the same time a deeply religious 
Puritan; but his mind was never tinged with the somber feeling 
of later Puritanism. 

Eliot stood for the control of the king’s ministers by Parlia- And the 
ment. Everything else, he saw, was likely to prove worthless, l< / es P? nsi ' 
if the executive could not be held responsible. The king’s the king s 
person could not be so held, except by revolution, but his min - ministers 


192 


PURITAN ENGLAND 


The king 
tries “be¬ 
nevolences 


isters might be impeached; and, under fear of this, they might 
be held in control. So Eliot persuaded the Commons to im¬ 
peach the Duke of Buckingham, the king’s favorite and the 
instiument of much past tyranny under James. Charles 
stopped the proceedings by casting Eliot into prison — in plain 

defiance of parliamentary privileges — and dissolving Parlia- 
ment. 

The king fell back upon “benevolences” to raise a revenue. 
This was a device that originated during the Wars of the Roses 
two centuries before. During those long struggles, Parliament 
could not meet regularly and taxes could not be collected. 
A king had to depend therefore, for long intervals, not upon 
parliamentary taxes, but upon “good-will” gifts ( benevolences ) 
from men of wealth in his party. The first king after the war, 
the Yorkist Edward IV, continued from choice to collect benev¬ 
olences as he met rich men in his progresses through the 
kingdom; and the first Tudor, Henry VII, reduced the thing to 
a system. Through his minister, Morton, he sent out written 
demands to rich men over all England.* 

England deeply resented this method of “supply,” because 
thereby a king was plainly made independent of parliamentary 
control. And so the young Henry VIII at his accession, 
despot as he was, sought popularity by formally giving up the 
evil practice and even handing over Morton, the tool of his 
father’s extortion, for execution. 

Now, a century later, Charles revived the evil practice, and 
iac his sheriffs in the county courts ask benevolences from all 
taxpayers But county after county refused to give a penny, 
often with cheers for Parliament. Some sheriffs refused to 
ask for the “free gift.” The County of Cornwall (Sir John 


easily able f „ M “ sa ‘ dthat the ‘r luxurious living showed that they were 
asily able to supply their kings needs; to others, that their economy of 

life proved that they must have saved wherewith to aid their sovereign 

every man of consequence found himself impaled, the people said on 

PointTfThfes o^tlh 1 ; M " F ° rk " -stt^ant 

PO t oi this story is that it reminds us of the recent introduction of forks 

(two pronged instruments) at table. Cf. p. 71 . 


CHARLES I AND “BENEVOLENCES” 


193 


Eliot’s county) answered “that if they had but two Line, they 
would sell one to supply his majesty, — in a 'parliamentary way” 

Then Charles tried a “forced loan.” This was really a tax 
levied by the usual tax machinery, — a tax thinly disguised 
by the false royal promise to repay it. The king’s party used 
both force and persuasion. Pulpits, manned now by the anti- 
Puritan party, rang with the cry that to resist the king was 
eternal damnation. As a patriot of the time put it, the “ High- 
church” clergy “improved the highwayman’s formula into 
‘Your money or your life eternal.’” 

And Charles made use of more immediate penalties. Poor 
freeholders who refused to pay were “pressed” into the navy, 
or a turbulent soldiery was quartered in their defenseless 
homes; and two hundred English gentlemen were confined 
in disgraceful prisons, to subdue their obstinacy. One young 
squire, John Hampden, who had based his refusal to pay 
upon a clause in Magna Carta, was rewarded with so close 
an imprisonment that, his kinsman tells us, “he never did 
look the same man after.” Equal heroism was shown by hun¬ 
dreds of unknown men. George Radcliffe wrote from his 
prison to his “right dear and loving wife” (who was eager 
to have him submit in time to have Christmas with her), 
“Shall it be thought I prejudice the public cause by begin¬ 
ning to conform, which none yet hath done of all that have 
been committed [imprisoned], save only two poor men, a 
butcher and another, — and they, hooted at like owls among 
their neighbors !” 

The forced loan raised little revenue; and with an armament 
poorly fitted out, Buckingham sailed against France, with 
which his blundering policy had brought England into war. 
For the third time in four years an English army was wasted 
to no purpose; and, sunk in debt and shame, Charles met his 
third Parliament in 1628. Before the elections, the imprisoned 
country gentlemen were released, and some seventy of them (all 
who appeared as candidates) sat in the new Parliament, in spite 
of the royal efforts to prevent their election. 


The 

“ forced 
loan ” 


England 

resists 


Parliament 
of 1628 


194 


PURITAN ENGLAND 



“ Petition of CIiarles asked for money. Instead of giving it, the Corn- 
Right” mons debated the recent infringements of English liberties 
and some way to provide security in future. The king offered 
to give his word that such things should not occur again, but 
was reminded that he had already given his oath at his coro¬ 
nation. Finally the House passed “the Petition of Right,” a 

document that ranks with 
Magna Carta in the history 
of English liberty. This 
great law first recited 
the ancient statutes, from 
Magna Carta down, 
against arbitrary imprison¬ 
ment, arbitrary taxation, 
quartering of soldiery upon 
the people in time of peace, 
and against forced loans 
and benevolences. Then 
it named the frequent 
violations of right in these 
respects in recent years. 
And finally it declared all 
such infringements illegal. 
The Lords tried to save 

Charlf^ t A f + # the king ’ s di ^ nit y by add- 

CHARLES I. After a famous portrait by • , 

Van Dyck. ‘ in & an evasive clause to 


i-i . . . me e nect that Parliament 

did not intend to interfere with “ that sovereign power wherewith 

your majesty is intrusted.” But the Commons rejected the 
amendment after a striking debate. “Sovereign power,” said 
one would mean power above condition; they could not leave 
the king that, for he had never had it.” “The king’s person I 

7h H LT"T’” SaW an ° ther ’ “ but not llis P° wer ”; and a 
third added, Magna Carta is such a fellow that he will have no 

sovereign Finally, the Lords, too, passed the Petition, and 

Charles, after evasive delays, felt compelled to sign it. 








THE PETITION OF RIGHT 


195 


In form, the document was a petition: in fact, when passed, 
and assented to by the king, it became a revision of the consti¬ 
tution down to date, so far as the personal rights of Englishmen 
were concerned. Almost at once, however, in recess of Parlia¬ 
ment, Charles broke its provisions regarding taxes. 

Parliament reassembled in bitter humor. Heedless of the Eliot’s 
king’s plea for money, it turned to punish the officers who had Resolutions 
acted as his agents in the recent infringements of the Petition 
of Right. Then the Speaker stopped business by announcing 
that he had the king’s command to adjourn the House. 1 Men 
knew that it would not be permitted to meet again, and there 
followed a striking scene. Two of the patriots (Holies and 
Valentine) bounded to the Speaker, thrust him back into his 
chair and held him there. 2 Sir Miles Hobart locked the doors 
against the king’s messenger, putting the key in his pocket; 
and Eliot in a ringing speech moved a series of resolutions 
which were to form the platform of the liberal party in the dark 
years to come. Royalist members cried, Traitor! Traitor! 

Swords were drawn. Outside, an usher pounded at the door 
with a message of dissolution from the king. But the bulk of 
the members sternly voted the resolutions, declaring traitors 
to England (1) any one who should bring in innovations in re¬ 
ligion without the consent of Parliament, (2) any minister who 
should advise the illegal levy of taxes, (3) any officer who should 
aid in their collection, and (4) every citizen who should volun¬ 
tarily pay them. 

And in the moment’s hush, when the great deed was done, Eliot’s 
Eliot’s voice was heard once more, and for the last time, in that death 
hall: “For myself, I further protest, as I am a gentleman, if 
my fortune be ever again to meet in this honorable assembly, 
where I now leave off, I will begin again.” Then the doors 
swung open, and the angry crowd surged out. Eliot passed 

« 1 The king could adjourn the Parliament from time to time, or he could 

dissolve it altogether, so that no Parliament could meet until he had called for 
new elections. 

2 If the Speaker left the chair, business was at an end. 


196 


ENGLAND AND THE STUARTS 


The “ No- 

Parliament 

years 


to the Tower, to die there a prisoner four years later. But 
Eliot’s friends remembered his words ; and, when another 
Pai Lament did meet, where he had left off, they began again. 

Eliot could have had his liberty if he had bent to acknowl¬ 
edge himself wrong. His wife died; friends fell away; con¬ 
sumption attacked him, and his enemies knew that he must 
yield or die. His son petitioned for his release, on the ground 
that doctors had certified that without it he could not live. 
The king refused: “Though Sir John be brought low in body, 
yet is he as high and lofty in mind as ever.” A month later, 
Eliot was dead. His son presented another petition, that he 
might have his father’s body for burial. This request too was 
refused, and there was inscribed on the paper, — a mean act of 
a mean king, — “Let Sir John’s body be buried in the church 
of that parish where he died.” So Eliot’s body rests in the 
lower m some unmarked and unknown spot - which matters 

little, since free government in England and America is his 
monument. 

On the dissolution of the third Parliament of Charles, Eng¬ 
land entered a gloomy period. The king issued royal edicts 
!" aws ’ and no Parliament met for eleven years (1629- 

., Ur "!f thls period ’ in many ways, the government 
sought the welfare of the nation, and it gave particular attention 

despoti c needS °' the P °° r; bUt ‘ tS methods were thoroughly 

To avoid the necessity of calling Parliaments, Charles now 
began to practice rigid economy. He sought, too, ingeniously 
o nd new ways to get money, and, among other devices, his 
lawyers invented “ship-money.” In time of invasion, seaboard 
counties had now and then been called upon by the kings to 
furnish ships for the national navy. Charles stretched this 
custom into a precedent for collecting a “ship-money tax” from 
ait England in time of peace. 

John Hampden (p. 193) refused to pay the twenty shillings 
assessed upon his lands, and the famous ship-money cose went to 
the courts (1637). James, in his time, had turned the courts 


JOHN HAMPDEN AND SHIP-MONEY 


197 


into servile tools by dismissing the only judge (Sir Edward 
Coke) who dared oppose his will. And now the slavish judges 
decided foi the king as had been expected. The king’s 
friends were jubilant, seeing in the new tax “ an everlasting 
supply on all occasions”; but Hampden had won the moral 
victory he sought. The twelve-day argument of the lawyers 
attracted wide attention, and the court in its decision was com¬ 
pelled to state the theory of despotism in its naked hideousness. 
It declared that there was no power to check the king's authority 
o\er his subjects, their persons or their money, — “For,” 
said the Chief Justice, “no act of Parliament makes any differ¬ 
ence. If England submitted now, she would deserve her 
slavery. 

The chief servants of the crown during this period were 
Archbishop Laud and Thomas Wentworth. Wentworth had 
been one of the leaders in securing the Petition of Right, but 
soon afterward he passed over to the side of the king and be¬ 
came Earl of Strafford. His old associates looked upon him as a 
traitor to the cause of liberty. 

Laud was an extreme High-churchman and a conscientious 
bigot. He reformed the discipline of the church and ennobled 
the ritual; but he persecuted the Puritan clergy cruelly, with 
imprisonment and even by the cutting off of ears. 

As a result of this and of the political discouragement, 
that sect founded the colony of Massachusetts Bay. 
Practically all the immigration this colony received, be¬ 
fore the American Revolution, came in the ten years 
1630-1640, while Charles ruled without Parliament. 

In 1638 Laud tried to force Episcopacy on Presbyterian 
Scotland. 1 But when the clergyman of the great church at 
Edinburgh appeared first in surplice, prayerbook in hand, 

1 That Scotland had been becoming Presbyterian is noted above, on p. 162. 
Scotland had been joined to England when her King James had become 
king of England, but each country had its own Parliament, laws, and church. 
The union was “personal,” and consisted in the fact that the two countries 
had the same king. This remained the theory until 1707 (p. 215). 


John 

Hampden 
and the 
“ ship- 
money ” 
tax 


Laud and 
Wentworth 


The 

Scottish 

Covenanters 


198 


ENGLAND AND THE STUARTS 


The Long 
Parliament 


John Pym’s 
leadership 


And Eliot’s 
old 

program 


Jenny Geddes, a servant girl/hurled her stool 1 at his head, 
ciying, — Out, priest! Dost say mass at my lug [ear]!” 
The service broke up in wild disorder, and there followed a 
strange scene in the churchyard where stern, grizzled men 
drew blood from their arms, wherewith to sign their names to a 
“Solemn Oath and Covenant” to defend their own form of 
religion with their lives. This Covenant spread swiftly over 
all Lowland Scotland, and the Covenanters rose in arms and 
crossed the border. 

Charles system of absolutism fell like a house of cards. He 
could get no help from England without a Parliament; and 
(November, 1640) he called the Long Parliament. The great 
leaders of that famous assembly were the Commoners Pym , 
Hampden , Sir Harry Vane, 2 and, somewhat later, Cromwell. 
Pym took the place of Eliot, and promptly indicated that the 
Commons were the real rulers of England. When the Lords 
tried to delay reform, he brought them to time by his veiled 

threat: he “ should be sorry if the House of Commons had to 
save England alone:'’ 

The Scots remained encamped in England; so the king had 
to assent to Parliament’s bills. Parliament first made itself 
safe by a law that it could be dissolved only by its own vote Then 
it began where Eliot had left off, and sternly put into action 
the principles of his last resolutions. Laud, who had "brought 
in innovations in religion,” and Wentworth, who had advised 
and helped carry out the king’s policy, were condemned to 
death as traitors. The lawyers who had advised ship-money 
and the judges who had declared it legal, were east into prison 
or driven into banishment. And forty committees were ap¬ 
pointed, one for each county, to secure the punishment of the 
lesser officers concerned in the illegal acts of the government. 
Ihen Parliament abolished the Court of the Star Chamber 


People who wished to sit during the sermon 


1 Churches had no pews, 
carried their own stools. 

therJ ane had SPent S ° me time ^ Massachusetts and had been governor 


THE LONG PARLIAMENT 


199 


and the High Commission, — two rather new courts which 
worked without juries and which, therefore, Charles had been 
able to use as instruments of tyranny. Meanwhile, the many 
martyrs whom Laud had imprisoned were freed from their 
dungeons, and welcomed to London by a joyous multitude 
that strewed flowers beneath the feet of their horses. These 
measures filled the first year, 1 and so far the Commons had 
been united — in punishing and redressing past grievances. 

But now a split began. Moderate men, led by the broad¬ 
minded Hyde and the chivalrous Falkland, thought enough 
had been done. Parliament had taught the king a stern lesson: 
to do more would mean danger of revolution and anarchy, for 
which these men had no wish. So they drew nearer to the king. 

On the other hand, more far-sighted leaders, like Pym and 
Hampden, saw the necessity of securing safeguards for the future, 
since to them it was plain that the king’s promises were worth¬ 
less. Moreover, a small Presbyterian and Independent party 
(“Root and Branch” men), under Vane and Cromwell, wanted 
to overthrow Episcopacy. 

Pym brought matters to a head by introducing a Grand 
Remonstrance, — a series of resolutions which appealed to the 
country for support in further measures against the king and 
the High-church party. In particular it proposed (1) that a 
synod of clergy should meet to reform the church; and (2) that 
the king’s choice of ministers (his chancellor, and so on) should 
be subject to the approval of Parliament. After an all-day and 
almost all-night debate, marked by bitter speech and even by 
the drawing of swords, the Commons adopted the Remonstrance 
by the narrow majority of eleven votes, amid a scene of wild con¬ 
fusion (November 22, 1641). Said Cromwell, as the House 
broke up, “If it had failed, I should have sold all I possess to¬ 
morrow, and never seen England more.” 

Charles tried to reverse this small majority against him by 
destroying Pym, Hampden, and three other leaders, on a 
charge of treasonable correspondence with the invading Scots. 

1 The trial of Laud came later, but he was already a prisoner. 


Parliament 

hesitates 


Pym’s 
“ Remon¬ 
strance ” 


200 


ENGLAND AND THE STUARTS 


Charles’ 
attempt 
to seize 
“ the 
five 

members 


No doubt they had been technically guilty of treason. But such 
“treason” against Charles was the noblest loyalty to England. 
The Commons paid no attention to the king’s charges; and so 
Charles entered the House in person, followed to the door hy a 
body of armed cavaliers, to seize (( the five members .” 

News of his coming had preceded him; and, at the order of 
the House, the five had withdrawn. Charles did not know this, 
and ordered the Speaker to point them out. The Speaker pro¬ 
tested that he had “no eyes to see, nor tongue to speak,” but 
as the House should direct him. “Well, well!” said the 
king, my eyes are as good as another’s”; and standing in 
the Speaker’s place he looked over the room. “ I see the birds 
are flown,” he added, in a different tone, — and walked out 
baffled, followed by angry shouts of “Privilege ! Privilege !” 1 

Charles’ despotic attempt, and weak failure, consolidated the 
opposition. London rose in arms, and sent trainbands to guard 
Parliament. And Parliament now demanded that the king give 
it control of the militia and of the education of the royal princes. 
Charles withdrew to the conservative North, and unfurled the 
standard of civil war (1642). 

For Furtcier Reading. — Green’s English People (or his Short 
History) is thnllingly interesting for this and the following periods. 

1 Referring tc the privilege of members of Parliament to be free from 
arrest, except on the order of the House itself (p. 112). 


CHAPTER VI 


THE GREAT REBELLION AND THE COMMONWEALTH 

Many men who had gone with Parliament in its reforms, now 
chose the king’s side rather than rebellion and the danger of 
anarchy. The majority of the gentry sided with the king, 
while in general the trading and manufacturing classes and 
the yeomanry fought for Parliament. At the same time, 
the struggle was a true “civil war,” dividing families and old 
friends. The king’s party took the name “Cavaliers” from the 
court nobles; while the parliamentarians were called “ Round 
Heads,” in derision, from the cropped hair of the London 
’prentice lads. 1 

And at first Charles was successful. The shopboys of the 
city trainbands could not stand before the chivalry of the 
“Cavaliers.” But Oliver Cromwell, a colonel in the parlia¬ 
mentary army, had raised a troop known as Ironsides. He saw 
that the only force Parliament could oppose to the habitual 
bravery of the English gentleman was the religious enthusiasm 
of the extreme Puritans. Accordingly, he drew his recruits 
from the Independents of the east of England, — mostly 
yeomen farmers. They were men of godly lives, free from 
the usual license of a camp. They fell on their knees for 
prayer before battle, and then charged with the old Hebrew 
battle psalms upon their lips. By this troop the great battle of 
Mars ton Moor was won. Then Cromwell was put in chief 
command. He reorganized the whole army upon this “New 
Model”; and soon after, the victory of Naseby virtually closed 
the war (1645). 

1 The portraits of Cromwell and Vane (pp. 202, 204) show that Puritan 
gentlemen did not crop their hair. Short hair was a “class” mark. 

201 


The 

Civil War, 
1642-1645 


Cromwell’s 

Ironsides 


202 


PURITAN REBELLION 



There is an instructive contrast between the civilized nature 
of this war and the character of the Thirty Years’ War in Ger¬ 
many, which was going on at the same time. In England non- 
combatants were rarely molested, and there was little needless 
destruction of property. And says John Fiske : “ If we consider 
merely its territorial area or the number of men slain, the war 
oi the English Parliament against Charles I seems a trivial affair 

. . . but if we consider the 
moral and political issues 
involved, and the influence 
of the struggle on the 
future welfare of mankind, 
we soon come to see that 
tbeie never was a conflict 
of more world-wide sig¬ 
nificance than that from 
which Oliver Cromwell 
came out victorious. . 

If ever there were men 
who laid down their, lives 
in the cause of all man¬ 
kind, it was those grim old 
Ironsides, whose watch¬ 
words were texts from 
Holy Writ, and whose 
battle cries were hymns 
of praise.” 


Cromwell. -After Lely’s portrait. 


Quarrel 
between 
Inde¬ 
pendents 
and Presby¬ 
terians 


When the war began, many Episcopalians in Parliament 

r„t n z to BX th , e ki 7v This ,eft the presbyt ~ 

ontrol. Before long this party was strengthened still further 
by the need of buymg the aid of Presbyterian Scotland. Then 
Parhament made the English church Presbyterian 

Jr<Z h fT U t0 T V f aH men t0 this of wor- 

hip. On this point, the Presbyterian Parliament and the 

Independent “New Model” quarreled. Charles, now a p i s ! 




ENGLAND A REPUBLIC 


203 


oner, tried to play off one against the other, — intending, with 
shameless duplicity, to keep promises to neither. “Be quite 
easy, he wrote his wife, “as to the concessions I may grant. 
When the time comes, I shall know very well how to treat 
these rogues; and, instead of a silken garter [the badge of an 
honorary order of knighthood] I will fit them with a hempen 
halter.” 

These dissensions and intrigues led to a “Second Civil War.” 
But now the real government of England was in the army. A 
council of officers, with Cromwell for their head, prepared plans ; 
and the whole army ‘sought the Lord” regarding them in 
monster prayer-meetings. 

The army quickly stamped out the royalist and Presbyterian 
risings. Then, under order from the council of officers, Colonel 
Pride “purged” the House of Commons by expelling 143 
Presbyterians. After “Pride’s Purge” (December, 1648), 
Parliament rarely had an attendance of more than sixty (out 
of an original membership of some five hundred). The “ Rump ” 
were all Independents, and their leader was Vane. Pym and 
Hampden had died some time before. 

This remnant of Parliament, backed by the army, abolished 
monarchy and the House of Lords, and brought “ Charles Stuart, 
that man of blood,” to trial for treason to England. Charles 
was executed, January 20, 1649, dying with better grace than 
he had lived. Then the “Rump” Parliament abolished Pres¬ 
byterianism as a state church, and declared England a republic, 
under the name of the Commonwealth. “ The people,” said a 
famous resolution, “ are, under God, the original of all just power; 
and the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, being 
chosen by the people, have the supreme power in this nation.” 

The Scots were not ready for such radical measures, and 
they were angry at the overthrow of Presbyterianism. So 
they crowned the son of the dead king as Charles II, and in¬ 
vaded England to place him on the throne. Cromwell crushed 
them at Worcester, and the young “King of Scots” escaped to 
the continent. 


The 

Common¬ 

wealth, 

1648-1654 


Battle of 
Worcester 


204 


PURITAN ENGLAND 


Cromwell 
and the 
Rump 


The Rump continued to rule for four years more. But it 
was only a shadow of the Parliament elected thirteen years 
before. Cromwell and the army grew anxious to see the 
government put on a permanent basis, and they felt that 
this could be done only by a real Parliament. The Rump was 

unwilling to dissolve; but 
at last, under Cromwell’s 
insistence, it agreed to 
do so. 

Cromwell learned, how¬ 
ever, that it was hurrying 
through a bill which 
would make its members 
a part of the new Parlia¬ 
ment without reelection, 
and which, indeed, would 
give them power to reject 
elected members if they 
chose. Cromwell felt that 
he was being tricked. 
Hurrying to the House 
with a file of musketeers, 
he dispersed it (1653) with 
an unusual burst of pas¬ 
sion. “Come,” he said, 

“ I will put an end to your 
prating. \on are no Parliament! I say, you are no Parlia¬ 
ment. His old friend, Vane, reproached his violence loudly. 
Cromwell turned with savage contempt: “Harry Vane! Sir 
Harry Vane! The Lord deliver me from Sir Harry Vane ! ” And 
after his officers had led the Speaker from the chair, Cromwell 
added to the remaining members, — “ It’s you that have forced 
me to this. I have sought the Lord, night and day, that he 
would slay me rather than put me upon the doing of this work.” 

Cromwell’s outburst of temper at the Rump was natural. 
He saw that it was going to be almost impossible for him to 



Harry Vane. 





OLIVER CROMWELL 205 

preserve the form of parliamentary government, when the 
only representatives of the nation had failed him — poor repre¬ 
sentatives though they were. There was no power that could 
even claim the right to call a Parliament. Cromwell and the 
army, however, summoned a national convention, to make a new 
constitution, and he made two other sincere attempts at Parlia¬ 
ments. But all these bodies proved dilatory and factious; and 
Cromwell grew more and more hasty and arbitrary. 

Finally he and the army officers impatiently took the construc¬ 
tion of new machinery of government into their own hands. 
Cromwell assumed the title of Lord Protector (1654); and the 
following six years are the period of the Protectorate. 

The real difficulty was that the Independents were only a small 
fraction of the nation. They had won mastery by war, and 
they kept it through the discipline of the army. Cromwell 
became practically a dictator, with greater power than Charles 
had ever had. His rule was stained by cruelties in Ireland; 
but in other respects it was wise and firm. He made England 
once more a Great Power, peaceful at home and respected 
abroad; and he- gave freedom of worship to all Protestant 
sects, — a more liberal policy in religion than could be found 
anywhere else in that age except in Holland and in Roger 
Williams’ little colony just founded in Rhode Island. 

At the best, however, Cromwell’s rule was the rule of force, not 
of law. The noble experiment of a republic had failed miser¬ 
ably in the hands of its friends; and, on Cromwell’s death, the 
nation, with wild rejoicings, welcomed back Charles II in “the 
Restoration ” of 1660. 

This is a good point at which to note the slow growth of reli¬ 
gious freedom. The Puritan Long Parliament, in 161^1 (while 
still led by broadminded men like Pym, Hampden, and Hyde), 
demanded from Charles I certain reforms in the church; but 
it protested that it did not favor religious toleration: “ We do 
declare it to be far from our purpose to let loose the golden reins 
of discipline and government in the church, to leave private 


The Pro¬ 
tectorate, 
1654-1660 


Excursus 

upon 

religious 

freedom 


206 


PURITAN ENGLAND 


persons or particular congregations to take up what form of 
divine worship they please. For we hold it requisite that there 
should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that order 
which the laws enjoin.” 

No bettei statement was ever made of the almost universal 
opinion. Even people who no longer thought any one religion 
essential to salvation did think one form essential to good 
order in society. 

True, in that same year, Lord Brooke (a Puritan nobleman 
with Independent convictions) wrote nobly in a treatise on 
religion: “ The individual should have liberty. No power on 

earth should force his practice. One that doubts with reason 
and humility may not, for aught I see, be forced by violence. 

. . . Fire and water may be restrained; but light cannot. It 
will in at every cranny. Now to stint it, is [to-morrow] to 
resist an enlightened and inflamed multitude. Can we not 
dissent in judgment, but we must also disagree in affection?” 

Only a few rare spirits anywhere in the world, however, 
reached this lofty view. Outside Holland and Roger Williams’ 
baby colony of Rhode Island, few had advanced as far as Crom¬ 
well. The world was not ready for religious freedom. 

For Further Reading. — Green’s histories as before (cf. p 143 
above) Carlyle’s Cromwell (in his Heroes and Hero-worship) may well 
e read. George MacDonald’s St. George and St. Michael and Scott’s 
Woodstock are excellent fiction for the Civil War, and they present some^ 
what different views. 


CHAPTER VII 

THE RESTORATION AND THE REVOLUTION 

With the Restoration, the great age of Puritanism closed. 
The court, and the young cavaliers all over the land, gave 
themselves up to shameful licentiousness. Of course, among 
the country gentry and the middle class of the towns, there 
continued to be large numbers of religious, God-fearing homes; 
and in places even the somber morality of the Puritans sur¬ 
vived. But fashionable society followed largely the example 
of the court circle. 

Court literature, too, was indescribably corrupt and indecent. 
But, in just this age of defeat, Puritanism found its highest 
expression in literature. John Milton , years before, had given 
noble poems to the world — like his L’Allegro — but for many 
years he had abandoned poetry to work in Cromwell’s Council 
and to champion the Purjtan cause in prose pamphlets. Now, a 
blind, disappointed old man, he composed Paradise Lost. And 
John Bunyan, a dissenting minister, lying in jail under the 
persecuting laws of the new government, wrote Pilgrim’s 
Progress. 

The established church became again Episcopalian, as it 
has since remained. In the reaction against Puritan rule, the 
new Parliament passed many cruel acts of 'persecution. Two 
thousand Puritan preachers were not only driven from their 
pulpits, but were forbidden to earn a living by teaching, or 
even to come within five miles of any city or borough in England. 
All dissenters — Catholic and Protestant — were excluded from 
the right to hold municipal office. And all religious worship 
except the Episcopalian was punished with severe penalties. 

In spite of all this, the great political principles for which the 
early Puritan Parliaments of Charles I had contended were 

207 


The 

Restoration 
of 1660 


The 

Episcopal 

church 

restored 


208 ENGLAND UNDER THE LATER STUARTS 


Political 

liberty 

preserved 


Charles II, 
1660-1685 


victorious. Even their old enemies adopted them. The 
Parliament that was elected in the fervor of welcome to the 
restored monarch was wildly enthusiastic for king and for 
church. Charles knew he could never get another so much to 
his mind; and so he shrewdly kept this “Cavalier Parliament” 
through most of his reign — till 1679. But even the Cavalier 
Parliament insisted strenuously, and successfully, on Parlia¬ 
ment s sole right to impose taxes, regulate the church, and control 
foreign policy. And Charles’ second Parliament adopted the 
great Habeas Corpus Act, which still secures Englishmen 
against arbitrary imprisonment — such as had been so common 
under Charles’ father. The principle of this act was older than 
Magna Carta; but the law of Charles’ time first provided 

adequate machinery, much as we have it in America to-day 
to enforce the principle. 

Charles II was careless, indolent, selfish, extravagant, witty. 
He is known as the “Merry Monarch.” One of his courtiers 
described him in jesting rhyme as a king “who never said a 
toohsh thing, and never did a wise one.” 


+ w U , *° L Ug l aZy ’ CKar ’ eS had real abili V- He said lightly 
that he had no mind to go on his travels again,” and at any 

cost he avoided a clash with Parliament. However, in return 

for secret grants of money from Louis XIV of France, he shame- 

lully made England a mere satellite of that country in foreign 

affairs; and at home he cautiously built up a standing army. 

ere is reason to think that beneath his merry exterior Charles 

was nursing plans for tyranny far more dangerous than his 

father s; but he died suddenly (1685) before he was ready to act 


Beginning of 

political 

parties 


Real political parties first appeared toward the close of this 
reign Charles had no legitimate son; and his brother and 
en, , ames, was a Catholic of narrow, despotic temper The 
more radical members of Parliament introduced a bill to exclude 
im iom the throne; and their supporters throughout England 
sent up monster petitions to have the bill made law. The 
a olics and the more conservative part of Parliament, espe- 


THE “GLORIOUS REVOLUTION” OF 1688 2 09 


cially those who believed that Parliament had no right to change 
the succession, sent up counter-petitions expressing horror at 
the proposal. These “Abhorrers” called the other petitioners 
Whigs (Whey-ea*ters), a name sometimes given to the extreme 
Scotch Calvinists with their sour faces. The Whigs called their 
opponents Tories (bog-trotters), a name for the ragged Irish 
rebels who had supported the Catholic and royal policy in the 
Civil War. 

The bill failed; but the rough division into parties remained. 
It was a long time before there was any regular organization 
or precise platform; but, in general, the Whigs believed in the 
supremacy of Parliament , and sought on every occasion to limit 
the royal authority; while the Tories sustained the royal author¬ 
ity and wished to prevent any further extension of the powers of 
the people. 

James II lacked his brother’s tact. He arbitrarily “sus¬ 
pended” the laws against Catholics, tried to intimidate the 
law courts, and rapidly increased the standing army. It was 
believed that he meant to make the established church Catholic; 
and this belief prepared England for revolution. The Whig 
leaders called for aid to William of Orange, the Stadtholder of 
Holland, who had married James’ daughter Mary. William 
landed with a few troops. James found himself utterly deserted, 
even by his army, and fled to France. 

The story of this Revolution of 1688 is not a noble one. Self¬ 
ishness and deceit mark every step. William of Orange is 
the only fine character on either side. There is no longer a 
patriot Eliot or Pym or Hampden, or a royalist Hyde or Falk¬ 
land. As Macaulay says, it was “an age of great measures 
and little men” ; and the term “glorious,” which English his¬ 
torians have applied to the Revolution, must be taken to belong 
to results rather than to methods. 

Those results were of mighty import. A Convention-Parlia¬ 
ment declared the throne vacant, drew up the great Declaration 
of Rights, the “third great document in the Bible of English 


Whigs and 
Tories 


James II, 
1685-1688 


The 

“ Glorious 
Revolution ’ 


The 
Bill of 
Rights 


210 


ENGLAND AFTER 1688 


Liberties,” and elected William and Mary joint sovereigns 
on condition of their assenting to the Declaration. The supremacy 
of Parliament over the king was once more firmly established. 
The new sovereigns, like the old Lancastrians, had only a parlia¬ 
mentary title to the throne. 

The next regular Parliament enacted this Declaration of 
Rights into a “Bill of Rights.” The Bill of Rights stated 
once more the fundamental liberties of Englishmen, as 
Magna Carta and the Petition of Right had done. The 
final clause declared that no Roman Catholic should ever 
be eligible to ascend the throne. It fixed the order of 
succession (1) in the children of William and Mary if any ■ 

(2) in Mary’s sister Anne. 


William III, 
1688-1702 


To understand the results of the Revolution at the close of 
the seventeenth century, we must carry the political story in 
part into the eighteenth. 

William III was a great-grandson of William the Silent. He 

ranks among England’s greatest kings. But he was unpopular, 

as a foreigner. (He spoke only his native Dutch, not English ) 

H,s reign (1688-1702) was spent mainly in war against the 

overshadowing might of Louis XIV of France. While only 

Stadtho der of Holland, William had already become the most 

formidable opponent of Louis XIV’s schemes; and now the 

irench king undertook to restore James II to the English 
throne. 6 

., Tbl ® began a senes of wars between France and England — 
the Second Hundred Years’ War.” With slight intervals of 
peace, the struggle lasted from 1689 to 1815. The story will 
e to m future chapters. Now it is enough to note that the 
ong conflict turned the government’s attention away from 
reform and progress at home. During the next century and a 
quarter, there were great changes in England, especially in 
farming and manufactures; but they were changes made by 
the people without notice by the government. These changes 
will be studied m later chapters. Just in the first years, how- 


GAINS FOR FREEDOM 


211 


ever, some remarkable reforms were made by Parliament, both 
in politics and in religion. These were properly part of the 
Revolution. 

The religious reform was embodied in the Act of Toleration of 
1689. The Revolution of 1688 was essentially the work of the 
English church. But the persecuted Protestant dissenters had 
rallied to its aid — against the Catholic James; and William 
insisted that Parliament should now grant them freedom of 
worship. This was done. 

The law, however, did not apply to Catholics, Jews, or 
Unitarians. These three classes remained excluded not only 
from all right to worship in their own way — under severe 
penalties — but also from the right to hold office or attend the 
universities. Indeed the Protestant dissenters were not allowed 
to do either of these last things. Still, to permit by law the 
public exercise of more than one religion was a great step forward. 

The chief gains in political liberty , connected with the Revo¬ 
lution, come under four heads : 

1. The Stuart kings had frequently interfered shamelessly 
with the independence of the courts. Now the judges were 
made removable only by Parliament, not by the king. 

2. A triennial bill ordered that a new Parliament should be 
elected at least once in three years. This put an end to such 
abuse as the long life of the Cavalier Parliament. In 1716 the 
term was changed to seven years, and in 1911, to five. A Parlia¬ 
ment may dissolve itself sooner than this; but it cannot last 
longer. 

3. Parliament hit upon a simple device which, indirectly, 
has put an end completely to the old way in which kings abused 
their power of dissolving Parliaments. After the Revolution, 
Parliaments determined to pass (i revenue bills'’ (furnishing money 
for government expenses) only for a year at a time — instead 
of for the life of the sovereign, as had been customary — and 
not to pass such bills at all until other business had been attended to. 
In like fashion, the Mutiny Act, which gives officers authority 
over soldiers, was passed henceforth only for short periods. 


Act of 
Toleration 


Gains in 

political 

liberty 


212 


ENGLAND AFTER 1688 


Beginning of 

cabinet 

government 


That is Parliament adopted the regular policy of delegating 
Power of purse and sivord for only one year at a time. Thence¬ 
forward, Parliaments have been assembled each year, and they 
have practically fixed their own adjournments. 

4. The graitest; problem of parliamentary government (as 
bir John Mot had seen) was to control the “king’s ministers” 
and make them really the ministers of Parliament. Parliament 
could remove and punish the king’s advisers; but such action 
could be secured only by a serious struggle, and against notorious 
offenders. Some way was wanted to secure ministers acceptable 
to Parliament easily and at all times. 

This desired “Cabinet Government” was secured indirectly 

through the next century and a half; but the first important 

steps were taken in the reign of William. At first William 

tried to unite the kingdom, and balance Whigs and Tories by 

keeping the leaders of both parties among his ministers. But 

e was much annoyed by the jealousy and suspicion which 

Parliament felt toward his measures. Sometimes, too, there 

were dangerous deadlocks between king and Parliament at 
critical times. 

Then a shrewd political schemer suggested to the king that 
ie should choose all his advisers and assistants from the Whigs 

lit m t 7 0nty l , the House of Commons. Such ministers 
haVe the confidence of the Commons; and that body 
would support their proposals, instead of blocking all measures 
Will,am accepted this suggestion; and a little later, when the 
Tories for a time secured a majority, he carried out the prin¬ 
ciple by replacing his “cabinet” with leading Tories This 
was the beginning of ministerial government, or cabinet govern- 

J™ km ’ was a powerful ruler. He was not a 

tyrant many way; but he believed in a king’s authority, and 
succeeded for the most part in keeping the ministers the “king’s 
ministers - to carry out his policy. Queen Anne (1702-1714 
tried to maintain a similar control over her ministry. But 
like W Ilham and Mary, she too died without living children; 


THE GEORGES AND WALPOLE 


213 


and the crown passed by a new Act of Settlement to a great 
grandson of James I, the German George I, who was already 
Elector of Hanover. 1 (This law excluded nearer heirs of James, 
because they were Catholics, and it makes the title of every 
English sovereign since Anne.) Then cabinet government won. 

Neither George I nor his son George II spoke English; and 
so far as they cared for matters of government at all, they 
were interested in their German principality rather than in 
England. They did not even attend “ cabinet ” meetings. 

1 Hanover was given a vote in the electoral college of the Holy Roman 
Empire in 1691. The following table shows the relationship of the Han¬ 
overians to the Stuarts: 


(1) James I (1603-1625; see table on page 153) 


(2) Charles I (1625-1649) Elizabeth = Frederick V 

Elector Palatine 


Mary (3) Charles II (4) James II 


m. William II . (1660-1685) 

of Orange 


(1685-1688) Rupert Sophia 

(d. 1682) Electress 

of Hanover 


(5) William III =Mary (6) Anne James Edward (7) George I 
(1689-1702) (d. 1694) (1702-1714) the Old Pretender (1714-1727) 


Growth of 
cabinet 
government 
under the 
Georges 


Charles Edward (8) George II 
the Young Pretender (1727-1760) 
(d. 1788) | 


Frederick 
(d. 1751) 


(9) George III 
(1760-1820) 


(10) George IV (11) William IV Edward Duke of Kent Ernest Augustus, 
(1820-1830) (1830-1837) (d. 1820) who became King 



of Hanover in 



1837, on the acces¬ 
sion of a woman 
in England 


(13) Edward VII in England 
(1901-1910) 


(14) George V 
(1910- ) 









Sir Robert 
Walpole 


English 
society 
in the 
eighteenth 
century 


214 ENGLAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 


During their half-century (1714-1760), the government of 
England was left to the group of ministers, or “the cabinet.” 
For nearly half the period (or from 1721 to 1742) the leading 
man in the cabinet was the Whig Sir Robert Walpole. Walpole 
selected the other ministers, and put before Parliament his own 
plans under the king’s name. He is properly called “the first 
Prime Minister.” Thus the reigns of these two stupid German 
Georges gave a great impetus to true cabinet government. The 

“ king’s ministers” were fairly on the way to become the “ministers 
of Parliament ” 

Unhappily, Parliament itself did not yet really represent the 
nation. Walpole sought earnestly, and on the whole wisely, 
to advance the material prosperity of England, and especially 
to build up her trade. Accordingly he clung tenaciously to a 
po icy of peace. But he ruled largely by unblushing corruption. 
Said he cynically, “Every man has his price.” Certainly he 
found it possible to buy many members of Parliament with gifts 
o ucrative offices — oftentimes offices with no duties attached 
to them. During his rule, it was not a parliamentary majority 
Imt made the ministry, but the ministry that made the parliamentary 
majority. The same method, used only a little less shamelessly, 
was the means by which the ministers of George III in the next 
generation managed Parliament and brought it' to drive the 
American colonies into war. The final steps by which the 
English people secured complete control over this executive 
branch of the government belong to a later part of the story. 


nglish upper Gasses in the eighteenth century were artificial 
and dissipated. The middle class was hearty, bluff, and whole¬ 
somely honest; but it was also exceedingly rude and coarse and 
immodest. Modern refinement of feeling and conduct had 
ar y appeared. England was not immoral. Compared with 
ier lands, she was a moral country. But there was little 
mora earnestness. The age of Puritanism had vanished. The 
established Episcopalian church had many “fox-hunting 
parsons, who neglected their duties, or made them empty forms, 


THE METHODIST MOVEMENT 215 

while they sought the companionship of the neighboring squires 
in sports and in drinking bouts. 

A protest against this lack of moral earnestness in the church 
and in society was the great Methodist movement. The 
founder was John Wesley, about 1738. While a student at 
Oxford, some years earlier, Wesley had established a religious 
society among his fellow students; and these young men were 
nicknamed Methodists, because of their regular habits. Wesley 
became a clergyman of the established church; but he soon 
came to place special emphasis on the idea of sudden and 
absolute “conversion” from sin. Aided by his brother 
Charles and by the powerful preacher Wliitefield, he journeyed 
through England, holding great “revivals” in vast open-air 
meetings, preaching the love of Christ and its power to save 
from sin. 

Wesley was a man of wonderful spirituality; but his fellow 
clergy for the most part were shocked at his method and refused 
to take him into their pulpits, and his converts came almost 
wholly from the lower classes. Much against the wish of the 
original leaders, the movement finally was organized as a 
dissenting “Methodist church.” But Wesley’s work went 
further than merely to found a new church, mighty as that 
church has become. The greatest result of the Methodist 
movement was found in the revivifying and spiritual quickening 
that followed within the established church and throughout all 
English life — somewhat as the Protestant revolt had reformed 
the Catholic church. 

Meantime “England” was becoming “Great Britain.” 
James I (1603) joined Scotland and England under one crown 
(p. 197). A century later (1707) this “personal union” was 
made a true consolidation by “the Act of Union,” adopted by 
the parliaments of both countries. Scotland gave up her 
separate legislature, and became part of the “United King¬ 
dom,” with the right to send members to the English Parliament 
and to keep her own established Presbyterian church. Halfway 


The 

Methodist 

revival 


“ Great 
Britain J 


216 ENGLAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 

between these two dates, Cromwell completed the conquest of 
Ireland. And that same seventeenth century had seen an¬ 
other and vaster expansion of England and of Europe, to which 
we now turn. 


For Further Reading. — It is desirable for reading students to 
continue Green at least through the Revolution of 1688. Blackmore’s 

D °°™ 1S a splendid story which touches some passages in the 
mstory of the closing seventeenth century. 


Exercise. — The dates in English seventeenth-century history 
are important for an understanding of early American history • 
especially 1603 (accession of James I); 1629-1640 (No-parliament 
penod) ; 1648-1660 (Commonwealth); 1660 (Restoration); 1688 


CHAPTER VIII 

expansion into new worlds 

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries — the age of the 
English Renaissance, of the Protestant Revolt, of the beginnings 
of scientific experiment, of the Puritan movement, and of the 
growth of political liberty in England — saw also the expan¬ 
sion of Europe into New Worlds east and west. 

During the Crusades Europe had learned to depend on Asiatic 
spices, sugars, cottons, silks, and metal wares as necessities of 
daily life. For two hundred years a vast caravan trade brought 
these articles, in ever growing streams, from central Asia to 
the eastern shores of the Mediterranean for shipment to the 
West. But in 1453 the Turks captured Constantinople, the 
emporium of the northern route from Asia to Europe by the 
Black Sea; and year by year the same ruthless barbarians 
crept further south, endangering the remaining routes by 
caravan and by the Red Sea. 

Europe, just awakening from the long torpor of the Middle 
Ages, and armed with the new “mariner’s compass ” (p. 221), 
eagerly sought new trade routes into Asia. Portugal found 
one, to the south, around Africa. Columbus, aided by the 
Spanish Isabella, tried a still bolder western route — and 
stumbled on America in his path. 

These discoveries worked revolutions in European life and 
thought. The size of the known earth had been more than 
doubled; and from the first the marvels of the new regions 
added vastly to the intellectual stir in Europe — as we may see, 
in part, in Shakspere’s Tempest. More than this, the dis¬ 
coveries proved to all men that many old, long unquestioned 

ideas about the earth were false. True, the Ancients had held 

217 


Commercial 
conditions 
and the 
discovery 
of America 


Effect upon 

European 

thought 


218 


EXPANSION OF EUROPE 


correct ideas about the size and shape and nature of the earth, 
and had played with the notion of sailing around it. Aristotle 
speaks of “persons” who held that it might be possible; and 
Strabo, a Roman geographer, suggested even that one or more 
continents might lie in the Atlantic between Europe and Asia. 

But during the Middle Ages men had come to believe that 
the known habitable earth was bounded on all sides by an un¬ 
inhabitable and untraversable world, — on the north by snow 
and ice, on the south by a fiery zone, on the west by watery 
wastes stretching down an inclined plane up which men might 
not return, and on the east by a dim land of fog and fen, the 
abode of strange and terrible monsters. 1 The Indian Ocean, 
too, was thought to be a lake, encompassed by the shores of 
Asia and Africa. 

New These false views had been partly corrected by a better 

knowledge^ g e0 S ra Phical knowledge of Asia, gained in the thirteenth and 
fourteenth centuries. About 1260, Louis IX of France (p. 85) 
sent Friar Rubruk as ambassador to the court of the Tartar 
Khan m central Asia; and the friar on his return reported that 
he had heard of a navigable ocean east of Cathay (China), with a 
marvelously wealthy island, Zipango (Japan). 

This rumor of an ocean to the east made a leap in men’s 
thought. In England, that remarkable man, Friar Bacon 
(p. 103), at once raised the question whether this ocean might 
not be the same as the one that washed Europe on the west and 
whether men might not reach Asia by sailing west into the 
Atlantic. Indeed, Bacon wrote a book to support these con¬ 
jectures, adding many opinions of the Ancients; and extensive 
extracts from this volume were copied into a later book, which 
was to become a favorite of Columbus. Such speculation 
implies that scholars understood the sphericity of the earth. 
Saracenic schools had preserved the old Greek knowledge in 
this matter, and some European thinkers had been familiar 
with it, even in the “Dark Ages.” 


1 For some of these ideas, see the curious and interesting 
John Mandeville (thirteenth century). 


Travels of Sir 


HENRY THE NAVIGATOR 


219 



Next the Mongols, who, for a time, ruled all northern and 
central Asia (p. 235), opened China to western strangers to a 
degree wholly new for that land; and, while Mongol dominion 
lasted, many strangers and merchants visited the East. Among 
these were three Venetians, the Polo brothers, who on their 
return sailed from Peking through the straits into the Indian 
Ocean and up the Persian Gulf. This proved true the rumor 
of Rubruk regarding an 
eastern ocean, and proved 
also that the Indian Ocean 
was not landlocked. 

And the new truth 
reached a large proportion 
of the very small part of 
Europe that read books. 

Travelers in that age did 
not often write descrip¬ 
tions of their travels. One 
of these Polos, however, 
being captured, soon after 
his return, in a sea fight be¬ 
tween Venice and Genoa, Illustration in a Thirteenth Century 

. t . • Manuscript, showing a Monk teach- 

remained a prisoner in ing the Globe. 

Genoa for some years; 

and the stories that he told of his adventures were written down 
by one of his fellow captives. Thus was made “ The Book of Ser 
Marco Polo,” one of the most popular books of the Middle Ages. 

From this time it was possible to think seriously of reaching 
India by sailing west. Soon afterward, as we have described, com¬ 
mercial conditions changed so as to impel men earnestly to try it. 

The Portuguese, under Prince Henry the Navigator, had 
already been engaged in building up a Portuguese empire in 
Africa and in the islands of the Atlantic (Azores, Canary, and 
Verde *); and about 1470 they began to attempt to reach India 


1 The name “Cape Verde” indicates the surprise of the discoverers (1450) 
at verdure so far south. 


The 

Portuguese 

voyages 





































220 


EXPANSION OF EUROPE 


sailing around Africa. In 1486 a Portuguese captain, Bar¬ 
tholomew Diaz, while engaged in this attempt, was carried far 
to the south in a storm, and on his return to the coast he found 
it on his left hand as he moved toward the north. He followed 
it several hundred miles, well into the Indian Ocean. Then 
his sailors compelled him to turn back to Portugal. India was 
not actually reached until the expedition of Vasco da Gama in 
1498, after more memorable voyages in another direction. 



Cvlujklbus AT THE <JOL TOIL TABLE OF FERDINAND AND ISABELLA _ Fta, 

e painting by Broiik in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. 


Columbus, 

1492 


One of the sailors wTh Diaz in 1486, when in this way he 
rounded the Cape of “ Good Hope,” was a Bartholomew Colum¬ 
bus, whose brother Christopher also had sailed on several 
ortuguese voyages. Now, however, for some years, Christo- 
pher Columbus had devoted himself to the more daring theorv 
that India could be reached by sailing west into the open 
Atlantic. Portugal, well content with her monopoly of African 
exploration refused to assist him to try his plan. Henry VII 

f 80 declined to furnish him ships. But finally 
the high-minded Isabella of Castille, while the siege of Granada 










THE MARINER’S COMPASS 


221 


was in progress, fitted out his small fleet, and in 1492 Colum¬ 
bus added America to the possessions of Spain. 

The ships and other tools used by these early discoverers 
seem imperfect indeed to us. Happily they did have the one 
indispensable instrument for their work — and the curious 
story of its discovery is worth a place here. In 1258, Brunetto 
Latini, the tutor of Dante, visited Friar Bacon in England, and 
wrote to a friend in Italy as follows: 

“Among other things he [Bacon] showed me a black, ugly stone called 
a magnet, which has the surprising quality of drawing iron to it; and 
if a needle be rubbed upon it and afterward fastened to a straw, so that 
it will swim upon water, it will instantly turn to the pole star. . . . 
Therefore, be the night never so dark, neither moon nor stars visible, 
yet shall the sailor by help of this needle be able to steer his vessel aright. 
This discovery so useful to all who travel by sea, must remain concealed 
until other times, because no master mariner dare use it, lest he fall 
under imputation of being a magician, nor would sailors put to sea 
with one who carried an instrument so evidently constructed by the 
devil. A time may come when these prejudices, such hindrances to 
researches into the secrets of nature, will be overcome; and then man¬ 
kind will reap benefits from the labor of such men as Friar Bacon, 
who now meet only with obloquy and reproach.” 


These discoveries by Columbus and the Portuguese at the 
end of the fifteenth century, revolutionized also the distribution 
of wealth in Europe. The center of historical interest shifted 
westward once more. The Mediterranean, for two thousand 
years the one great highway between Europe and the Orient, 
gave way to the Atlantic and the “passage round the Cape.” 
And with the decay of Mediterranean trade, the cities of Italy 
lost their leadership both in commerce and in art, while vast 
gain fell to the seaboard countries on the Atlantic. 

For a hundred years, it is true, the direct material gains were 
confined to the two countries which had begun the explorations. 
Portugal built up a great and rich empire in the Indian Ocean 
and in the Pacific, and an accident gave her Brazil. Otherwise, 
the sixteenth century in America belongs to Spain, 


The 

mariner’s 

compass 


Center of 

historical 

interest 

shifts 

westward 


222 


EXPANSION OF EUROPE 


Spain in 
America 


Defeat of 
the 

Armada, 

1588 


France in 
America 


The story of Spain’s conquests is a tale of heroic endurance, 
marred by ferocious cruelty, — “all horrid transactions,” as 
an old Spanish chronicler said. Not till twenty years after 
the discovery, did the Spaniards advance to the mainland of 
America for settlement; but, once begun, her handful of ad¬ 
venturers swooped north and south. By 1550, she held all 
South America (save Portugal’s Brazil), all Central America, 
Mexico, the Californias far up the Pacific coast, and the Floridas! 
The gold from Mexico and Peru helped to give Spain her proud 
place as the mightiest country in Europe, and she guarded 
these American possessions jealously. The Gulf of Mexico 
and the Caribbean Sea were Spanish lakes, and the whole 
Pacific was a “closed sea.” Frenchman or Englishman, caught 
upon those waters, found his grave beneath them. 

Nor was Spain content with this huge empire on land and 
sea She was planning grandly to occupy the Mississippi 
va ey and the Appalachian slope in America, and to seize 
Holland and England in Europe; but in 1588 she received her 

fatal check, at the hands of the English sea dogs, in the ruin 
ot her Invincible Armada. 

That victory was a turning point in world history. Spain 
never regained her old supremacy on the sea; and so the other 
seaboard countries of Western Europe were free to trv their 
fortunes in America. But Holland, in her half-century of 
rebellion against Spain, turned her chief energies to seizing 
Portugal s old empire in the Orient, which had now become 
Spains (p. 166). The Swedish colonies on the Delaware were 
never formidable to the claims of other nations, after the death 

of Gustavus Adolphus (p. 175). And so North America was 
lejt to b ranee and England. 


For a time, France seemed most likely to succeed Spain as 
mistress in North America. A quarter of a century, it is true 
went to exploration and failure; but in 1608 Champlain founded 
tie first permanent French colony at Quebec. Soon eanoe- 
Ueets of traders and missionaries were coasting the shores of 


FRANCE IN AMERICA 


223 



the Great Lakes and establishing stations at various points 
still known by French names. Finally, in 1682, after years of 
gallant effort, La Salle followed the Mississippi to the Gulf, 
setting up French claim to the entire valley. 

From that time New France consisted of a colony on the 
St. Lawrence, in the far north, and the semi-tropical colony of 
New Orleans, joined to each other by a thin chain of trading 
posts and military sta- 


La Salle Taking Possession of the Missis¬ 
sippi Valley for France, at the mouth of 
the river. From an imaginative painting by 
Marchand, at the St. Louis Exposition in 1904. 


tions along the con¬ 
necting waterways. 

It is easy to point 
out certain French ad¬ 
vantages in the race 
with England for North 
America. At home 
French statesmen 
worked steadily to 
build a French empire 
in the New World, 
while the English gov¬ 
ernment for the most 
part ignored English 
colonies. The thought of such empire for their country, too, 
inspired French explorers in the wilderness — splendid patriots 
like Champlain, Ribault, and La Salle. France also sent forth 
the most zealous and heroic of missionaries to convert the savages. 
These two mighty motives, patriotism and missionary zeal, 
played a greater part in founding New France than in establishing 
either Spanish or English colonies. Moreover, the French could 
deal with the natives better than the stiffer, less sympathetic 
English could; and the French leaders were men of far-reach¬ 
ing views. 

But though the French colonies were strong in the leaders, 
they were weak in some vital matters that depended on the 
mass of the colonists. They lacked homes, individual enter¬ 
prise, and political life. 


French 

advantages 


Weak points 
in French 
colonization 



224 


EXPANSION OF EUROPE 


Lack of 
homes 


Exclusion 
of the 
Huguenots 


Paternalism 
in industry 


Lack of 
political 
life 


1. New France was not a country of agriculture. Except 
lor a few leaders and missionaries, the settlers were either un- 
progressive peasants or reckless adventurers. For the most 
part they did not bring families, and, if they married, they 
took Indian wives. Agriculture was the only basis for a perma¬ 
nent colony; but these colonists did not take to regular labor: 

instead they turned to trapping and the fur trade, and adopted 
Indian habits. 

2 The French government sought, in vain, to remedy this by 
sending over cargoes of “king’s girls,” and by offering bonuses 
for early marriages and large families. The easiest remedy 
would have been to let the Huguenots come. They were skill¬ 
ful artisans and agriculturists, and, while they held towns for 
t emselves (pp. 173, 174), they had shown some fitness for self- 
government. But Louis XIV of France, while he lavished 
money in sending undesirable immigrants, refused to let heretics 

lound a new state. In large part, it was religious bigotry which 
lost k ranee her chance. 

3. Paternalism smothered private enterprise in industry 
New France was taught to depend, not on herself, but on the aid 
and direction of a government three thousand miles away. 

rade was shackled by silly restrictions, and hampered by silly 
encouragements. The rulers did everything. “ Send us money 
to build storehouses” ran the begging letters of the colonial 
governors to the French king. “Send us a teacher to make 
sailors We want a surgeon.” And so, at various times, re¬ 
quests for bnckmakers, iron-workers, pilots. New France got 
e help she asked; but she did not learn to walk alone. 

4. Political life, too, was lacking. France herself had become 
a centralized despotism; and, in New France, as a French 
writer (Tocquevil'e) says: “this deformity was seen as though 
magnified by a microscope.” No public meetings could be held 
without special license from the governor; and, if licensed, they 
con d do nothing worth while. The governor’s ordinances 
(not the people) regulated pew rent, the order in which digni¬ 
taries should sit in church, the number of cattle a man might 


WHY FRANCE FAILED IN AMERICA 


225 


keep, the pay of chimney sweeps, the charges in inns, and so 
on. “It is of greatest importance,” wrote one official, “that 
the people should not be at liberty to speak their minds.” 

Worse than that — the people had no minds to speak. In 
1672, Frontenac, the greatest governor of New France, tried 
to introduce the elements of self-government. He provided 
a system of “estates” to advise with him, — a gathering of 
clergy, nobles, and commons (citizens and merchants); and 
he ordered that Quebec should have a sort of town meeting 
twice a year to elect aldermen and to discuss public business. 
The home government sternly disapproved these mild innova¬ 
tions, reminding Frontenac that at home the kings had done 
aw r ay with the old States General (p. 86), and directing him 
to remember that it was “proper that each should speak for 
himself, and no one for the whole.” The plan fell to pieces; 
the people cared so little for it that they made no effort to save it. 


Very different was the fringe of English colonies that grew 
up on the Atlantic coast, never with a king’s subsidies, often 
out of a king’s persecution, and asking no favor but to be let 
alone. 

During the last quarter of the sixteenth century, when Eliza¬ 
beth’s reign was half gone, England entered openly on a daring 
rivalry with the overshadowing might of Spain. Out of that 
rivalry, English America was born — by the work not of 
sovereigns, but of individual adventurous patriots. Reckless 
and picturesque freebooters, like Drake and Hawkins, sought 
profit and honor for themselves, and injury to the foe, by raiding 
the wide-flung realms of New Spain. More farsighted men, 
like Raleigh, saw that English colonies in America would be 
“ a great bridle to the Indies of the Kinge of Spaine,” and began 
attempts so to “put a byt in the anchent enemy’s mouth.” 

Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Raleigh, in Elizabeth’s reign, 
made the first attempts. These came to nothing, because 
just then the energies of the nation were drained by the ex¬ 
hausting struggle with the might of Spain in Europe. Then 


England’s 
rivalry with 
Spain in 
America 


Motives of 
English 
promoters 
at home 


226 


EXPANSION OF EUROPE 


James became king, and sought Spanish friendship; and 
Englishmen began to fear lest their chance for empire was 
slipping through their fingers. Men said that a terrible mis¬ 
take had been made when Henry VII refused to adopt the 
enterprise of Columbus, and all the more they insisted that 

ngland should not now abandon Virginia, — “ this one enter- 
prise left unto these days.” 





Motives of 
colonists 


Moreover, population had doubled in the long internal peace 
since the Wars of the Roses, rising to some four million people 

port's TV n y a V th “ many pe ° ple as the islan d sup- 
P o-day, but, under the industrial system of that time 

England needed an outlet for this “crowded” population (p. 184)’ 

The more enterprising of the hard-pressed yeomanry were glad 

"»* - “»— 









*lt>* 
























































ENGLAND IN AMERICA 


227 


But captains and capitalists, too, were needed; and a new 
condition in England just after the death of Elizabeth turned 
some of the best of the middle class toward American adven¬ 
ture. LA til James made peace with Spain (1604), the high- 
spirited youth, and especially the younger sons of gentry 
families, fought in the Low Countries for Dutch independence 
(p. 168) or made the “ gentlemen-adventurers ” who under com¬ 
manders like Drake paralyzed the vast domain of New Spain 
with fear. Now these men sought occupation and fortune in 
colonizing America, still attacking the old enemy, and in his 
weakest point. These young adventurers were not used to 
steady industry, and they were restless under discipline. But 
when they had learned somewhat of the needs of frontier life, 
their pluck and endurance made them splendid colonists. 

Such were the forces in English life that established 
Virginia, early in the reign of James I. Toward the close of 
that same reign, Puritanism was added to the colonizing forces, 
and, before the Long Parliament met, there was a second patch 
of English colonies on the North Atlantic shore. After this, 
the leading motive for colonization was a desire to better one’s 
worldly state — to win a better home or more wealth than the 
Old W orld offered — though, late in the century, religious per¬ 
secution in England played its part again in founding the great 
liberal colony of Pennsylvania. And so, from one cause and 
another, at the time of the “Revolution of 1688,” the English 
settlements in America had expanded into a broad band of twelve 
great colonies, reaching from the Penobscot to the Savannah, with 
a total population of a quarter of a million. 

These colonies all enjoyed the English Common Law, with 
its guarantees for jury trial, freedom of speech, and other 
personal liberties (such as were known in no other people’s 
colonies for two hundred years); and almost as soon as founded, 
they developed also a large degree of political liberty. They 
all possessed their own self-governing representative assemblies, 
modeled on the English Parliament. 

Moreover, not all England, but only the more democratic 


Puritanism 


England’s 

success 


Transfer of 
English 
freedom to 
America 


228 


EXPANSION OF EUROPE 


Democratic 

tendencies 

intensified 


part of English life, was transferred to America. No hereditary 
nobles or monarch or bishop ever made part of colonial America. 
And that part of English society which did come was drawn 
toward still greater democracy by the presence here of un¬ 
limited free land. When the Puritan gentlemen, who at first 
made up the governing body in Massachusetts colony, tried to 
fix wages for carpenters by law, as the gentry did in England, 
the New England carpenters simply ceased to do carpenter 
work and became farmers. Thus wages rose, spite of aristo¬ 
cratic efforts to hold them down. Free land helped to main¬ 
tain equality in industry, and so in politics; and the English 
colonies from the first began to diverge from the old home in 
the direction of even greater freedom. 

At the same time, the colonists were essentially English . Their 
free institutions were all English in origin; and they themselves 
were Englishmen on a distant frontier. Free land did not 
make New France democratic and self-governing. Frenchmen 
and Englishmen in the New World developed along lines of despot - 
ism or freedom upon which their old homes had started them. 

In the next chapter we shall see how the story of American 
colonization merged with the story of European wars. The 
conflict in Europe (p. 210) between William III of England and 
Louis XIV of France became a hundred years’ conflict (1690~ 
1815) for empire in America and Asia. 


of Fnrnnp URT w R The Student should stud y expansion 

ol Europe in Woodward s Expansion of the British Empire, I 1-263 • 

Seeley s Expansion of England; or Caldecott’s English Colonization ' 


PART III 


THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV AUD FREDERICK II 

1648-1789 


CHAPTER IX 

FRENCH LEADERSHIP 

The period we study in the next three short chapters covers 
the century and a half from the close of the hundred years of 
religious wars to the beginning of the French Revolution (1648- 
1789). During these 141 years the map of Europe was inces¬ 
santly shifting. The student should read the story, but the 
teacher may find it best to conduct recitations with open 
books and to fix only a few summaries. 

The last part of the Thirty Years’ War, we saw, was something 
besides a religious conflict. The Hapsburgs had long ringed 
France about with peril; and so Catholic France at last aided 
Protestant Germany and Holland to break the power of Catholic 
Austria and Spain. Such attempts to destroy a too powerful 
neighbor are characteristic of the next hundred years of war. 
The chief object of statesmen became to keep any one country 
from growing too strong for its neighbors’ safety. This was 
called maintaining the Balance of Power. For many years 
France was the country that threatened that balance , and so league 
after league of other countries was organized against her. 
International morality was low and selfish, however, and com¬ 
monly the nations were willing to let a strong Power rob a 
weaker neighbor, if they could find “compensation” (and 

229 


The 

“ Balance 
of Power ” 


Threatened 
by France 




230 


THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV 


Dynastic 

wars 


Early years 
of Louis XIV 


First series 
of wars of 
Louis XIV 


maintain the “balance”) by themselves robbing some other 
weak state. 

Another curious fact is that these wars were dynastic wars 
(wars in the interests of ruling families) more than any others 
that Europe had ever seen. And the personal likings and 
hatreds of kings, as well as their family interests, interfered 
sometimes with their devotion to the “ balance of power.” 

During most of the long period, the stage is held by one or 
another of three great rulers, Louis XIV of France (1643-1715), 
Peter the Great of Russia (1689-1725), and Frederick the 
Great of Prussia (1740-1786). The main influence of Peter 
was spent directly upon his own country; but Louis and Fred¬ 
erick belonged to all Europe, and the period is covered by 
the Age of Louis XIV and the Age of Frederick II. 

In the early years of Louis XIV it seemed that his reign 
was to rival that of Henry IV. With his great minister, Colbert , 
he introduced economy into the finances, encouraged new 
manufactures, built roads, introduced canals, and watched 
zealously over the growth of New France in America. But in 
1667 he began a series of wars that filled most of the remaining 
forty years of his reign. During this half-century despotic 
France threatened freedom for the world, as Spain had done 
a century before, and much as Hohenzollern Germany has 
recently been threatening it. 

In the first twelve years of war, Louis sought to seize territory 
on his northeastern frontier. The Dutch Republic was his 
chief obstacle. Finally, Louis dropped all other plans, in order 
to crush that little state. In 1672, without warning, he seized 
the duchy of Lorraine — much as the Germans seized Luxemburg 
at the opening of the recent World War — and so won access 
to Holland’s frontier, which he crossed with a splendid army of 
100,000 men. The Dutch intrusted their government to Wil¬ 
liam of Orange (who afterward became William III of England). 
William was not a supreme genius, like his great-grandfather, 
William the Silent; but he was faithful, persistent, and heroic. 
More than any other man he foiled the ambition of France. 


FIRST WARS OF LOUIS XIV 


231 


Friends urged upon William that conflict with the mighty 
power of Louis was hopeless, and that he could only see his 
country lost. “There is a way never to see it lost/’ he replied 
Quietly; “ that way is to die on the last dike.” With such grim 
determination, he finally cut the dikes, and the North Sea 
drove out the French armies. Meantime William toiled cease¬ 
lessly in building up against France an alliance of European 
powers, until Louis was compelled to accept peace with only 
slight gains of territory from the Spanish Netherlands. 

During ten years of truce that followed, Louis continued 
to seize bits of territory along the Rhine — including the “free 
city” of Strassburg. But the important event of this period 
was his treatment of the Huguenots. In 1685 he revoked the 
Edict of Nantes, and tried to compel the Huguenots to accept 
Catholicism. Dragoons were quartered in the Huguenot dis¬ 
tricts, and terrible persecutions fell upon those who refused to 
abandon their faith. Protestantism did finally disappear from 
France. But, though Louis tried to prevent any heretic from 
leaving France alive, tens of thousands (perhaps 300,000 in 
all) escaped to Holland, Prussia, England, and America. 1 The 
effect of this flight on France corresponded in a measure to 
the effect of the expulsion of the Moriscoes (p. 171) on Spain. 
It was a crushing blow to the prosperity of the country. The 
rest of Louis’ reign was a period of failure. 

The second series of wars began in 1689, when William of 
Orange had become king of England (p. 210). As before, the 
French armies seemed invincible in the field; but, as before, Wil¬ 
liam checked Louis by building up a general European alliance 
against him. England had now taken Holland’s place as the 
center of opposition to French despotism. Louis fought mainly 
to get more Rhine territory; but this time he kept no gains. 
This war is known in American history as “King William’s 

1 In America the Huguenots went mainly to the Carolinas ; but some old 
Virginia families trace their origin to this immigration. In New York John 
Jay and Alexander Hamilton were both of Huguenot descent. And in Massa¬ 
chusetts the Huguenot influence is suggested by the names of Paul Revere, 
Peter Faneuil, and Governor Bowdoin. 


The Edict 
of Nantes 
revoked 


Later wars 
of Louis XIV 


232 


THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV 


War. The struggle had widened from a mere European war into 
a Titanic conflict between France and England for world-empire. 

The war-methods of France in this struggle were horrible. 
French aimies deliberately depopulated large districts. A 
striking passage of Macaulay tells the fate of one Rhine 
province: 

“ The commander announced to near half a million human 
beings that he granted them three days grace. . . . Soon 
the roads and fields were black with innumerable men, 
women, and children, fleeing from their homes. . . . Flames 

went up from every market place, every parish church, 
every county seat/’ 

This was the last time in Europe that such atrocious and 
barbarous warfare was seen — until Germany used even 
more ferocious methods in the World War. Germany’s sin 
was, in part, that she had remained on a level that the rest 
of Europe outgrew more than two hundred years ago. 


The 

“ Spanish 
Succession” 


Next, Louis sought extension on his other land frontier. 
Charles II, the last Spanish Hapsburg, was dying. The crown 
would go naturally either to the Austrian Hapsburgs or to the 
sons of Louis XIV, who were nephews of Charles. Louis 
finally agreed to a partition treaty, drawn up by William of 
range, for di\ iding the Spanish realms among the powers of 
urope. But the proud Spanish people, who had not been 
consulted had no mind for such an assassination of their empire. 

6y P ^f e , ITed mstead the accession of Louis’ younger grand- 
son as up V. When Louis became sure of this (1700), he 
decided to snatch the whole prize. He placed Philip on the 
Spanish throne, and said exultantly, “The Pyrenees no longer 

cXlSt, 


But Europe united against France and Spain in the “War 
of the Spanish Succession,” known in American history as 
Queen Anne s War.” In this struggle, for the first time, 
success in the field lay with the Allies. The English Marl- 
bowugh and the Hapsburg Prince Eugene were two of the 


FAILURE OF FRENCH AGGRESSION 


233 


greatest generals of history, and they won terrible victories 
over the hitherto invincible armies of France, at Blenheim 
in Bavaria, and at Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet in 
Belgium, the suffering battleground of these struggles. 

The Peace of Utrecht (1713) left Philip king of Spain, but Peace of 
he had to renounce for himself and his heirs all claim upon the ^ rec ^ 
French throne. France gained no territory in Europe, and in 
America she lost N ewfoundland and Nova Scotia to England. 

England also acquired command of the Mediterranean, by securing 
from Spain the fortress of Gibraltar and the island of Minorca. 

Spain lost all her European possessions outside her own peninsula, 
ceding her Netherland provinces, the kingdom of Sicily and Naples, 
and the great Duchy of Milan in North Italy, to Austria. This 
last was the beginning of an Austrian control in Italy which was 
to prove pernicious for two centuries. 


Louis XIV dazzled the men of his age, and won the title Exhaustion 
of the Great King ( Grand Monarque ); but we can now see of France 
that his aims were mistaken, even from a purely selfish view. 

His predecessors had fought for security against the hostile 
embrace of the Hapsburgs. After 1648, that danger had 
passed away Louis fought only to enlarge his borders. 

In this aim he was partially successful; but his wars exhausted 
France and left the nation burdened with debt through the 
next century. At the close of his reign, the industry of France 
was declining under a crushing taxation, of which more than half 
went merely to pay the interest on the debt he had created. And 
in his unjust attacks upon petty properties of his neighbors 
in Europe, he had wasted strength that might have intrenched 
France as mistress in Asia and America. 

Intellectually, however, France was now the acknowledged French 
leader of Europe. This continued to be true through the next j^Eurape 
century. The court of Louis XIV was the model on which every 
court in Europe, large or small, sought to form itself. French 
thought, French fashions, the French language, spread over 
Europe and became the common property of all polite society. 


234 


THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV 


The age of 
despots 


I his admiration for France was due partly to an outburst 
of French poetry at this time. It was the first great age in 
French literature. The leading authors were the dramatists, 
Corneille, Racine, and Moliere. A striking illustration of the 
influence of this French literature is that a great English school 
of writers modeled themselves upon it — the body of 
correct poets, of whom Pope is the most famous member. 
At the same time, this literature was brilliant and sparkling, 
rather than great. “ The work is not constructive, but imitative 
It is not free and strong, but careful and studied.” 

“I am the state” is a famous saying ascribed to Louis XIV. 
Whether he said it or not, he might have done so with perfect 
truth. So might almost any monarch of his day, outside of 
England. Monarchs were everything; the people, so far as 
government was concerned, were nothing. Louis called the 
English Parliament “an intolerable evil.” If England and 
Holland had not withstood his ambitious dreams of empire, free 
government would then have perished from the earth. 




CHAPTER X 

THE RISE OF RUSSIA 

The South-Slavs (Serbs and Bulgarians), we have noticed, 
were long kept down by Turkish conquest (p. 121). In like 
fashion, the Slavs of Russia for some centuries remained 
backward because of even more cruel conquest by savage and 
heathen Tartars. 

Early Russian history is a blank or a mass of doubtful legends. 
We know only that before the year 900, there was a prince at 
Moscow ruling over the Russian Slavs from Novgorod to 
Kiev. Toward the close of the next century, Greek Christianity 
was introduced from Constantinople, and Greek civilization 
began slowly to make progress among the Russians. But 
Russia was exposed to danger from the east. Geographi¬ 
cally it is merely a small part of the vast plain stretching across 
northern Asia, peopled in that day by savage nomad tribes of 
Tartars. About 1200, a great military leader appeared in 
Asia among these Tartars. Taking the title Genghis Khan 
(Lord of Lords) he organized the scattered nomad tribes into a 
terrible fighting machine, and set out to conquer the world. 
The ancient Scythian and Hunnish invasions were repeated 
upon a larger scale and with greater horrors. Genghis turned 
fertile countries into deserts and populous districts into tombs, 
marked by enormous pyramids of blackened corpses. He 
conquered China, northern India, and Persia, while his son 
invaded Europe. In 1223 the rising Christian state of Russia 
was crushed, and the Mongol empire reached from Peking 
and the Indus to Crimea and the Dnieper. 

The death of the Great Khan (1227) recalled his son to Asia, 
but, ten years later, the assault on Europe was renewed. Mos- 

235 


Russia 
and the 
Tartar 
Conquest 


236 


THE RISE OF RUSSIA 


cow was burned, and northern Russia became a tributary 
province. Poland and Hungary were ravaged and conquered. 
Half of Europe became Tartar, and these new Huns even 



0 ,« S « B ^f L ’, M ,°, soow ' buil * ^ the reign of Ivan the Terrib 

I, 1 '? ’ 7 The buUd *ng was painted brilliantly in all the colors 
tne rainbow. 


crossed the Danube. But again Western Europe was saved 
from a greater peril than Turkish conquest by the death of a 
Mongol emperor. Soon afterward the vast Tartar realm fell 














PETER THE GREAT 


237 


into fragments, and the pressing danger passed away. For 
three centuries, however, a Tartar state, the Golden Horde , 
maintained itself in southern Russia; and the whole later 

development of Russia has felt the baleful influence of Tartar 
dominion. 

In 1480 a tributary Russian prince threw off the Tartar yoke, 
and one of his near successors, Ivan the Terrible, took the title 
Fsar (from Caesar, the old Roman title for an emperor). Under 
this Ivan, by 1550, when the religious wars were beginning in 
Western Europe, Russia reached from the inland Caspian 
northward and westward over much of the vast eastern plain 
of Europe, stretching even into Asiatic Siberia. But it had 
no seacoast except on the ice-locked Arctic, and no touch 
with Western Europe. Tartars and Turks still shut it off 
from the Black Sea; the Swedes shut it from the Baltic 
(p. 177); and the Poles prevented any contact with Germany. 

Thus the Russians were really Asiatic in geographv. The 
tsars imitated the Tartar khans in their rule and court. The 
people were Asiatic in dress, manners, and thought. They 
belonged to the Greek church; but they had no other tie with 
European life. 

To make this Russia a European Power was the work of Peter 
the Great. Peter was a barbaric genius of tremendous energy, 
clear intellect, and ruthless will. He admired the material 
results of Western civilization, and he determined to Europeanize 
his people. As steps toward this, he meant to get the Baltic 
coast from Sweden, and the Black Sea from the Turks, so as to 
have “ windows to look out upon Europe.” 

Early in his reign, the young Tsar decided to learn more 
about the Western world he had admired at a distance. In 
Holland, as a workman in the navy yards, he studied shipbuild¬ 
ing. He visited most of the countries of the West, impressing 
all who met him with his insatiable voracity for information. 
He inspected cutleries, museums, manufactories, arsenals, 
departments of government, military organizations. He col¬ 
lected instruments and models, and gathered naval and military 


Ivan the 
Terrible 


Peter the 
Great 


238 


THE RISE OF RUSSIA 


Peter 

“ European¬ 
izes ” 
Russia 


Expansion 
toward the 
open seas 


stores. He engaged choice artists, goldbeaters, architects, 
workmen, officers, and engineers, to return with him to Russia, 
by promises, not well kept, of great pay. 

With these workmen Peter sought to introduce Western 
civilization into Russia. The manners of his people he re¬ 
formed by edict. He himself cut off the Asiatic beards of 
his courtiers and clipped the bottoms of their long robes. 
Women were ordered to put aside their veils and come out of 
their Oriental seclusion. Peter “ tried to Europeanize by Asiatic 
methods.” He “ civilized by the cudgel.” The upper classes 
did take on a European veneer. The masses remained Russian 
and Oriental. 

Peter was more successful in starting Russia on her march 
toward the European seas. On the south, he himself made no 
permanent advance, despite a series of wars with Turkey; but 
he bequeathed his policy to his successors, and, from his day 
to the opening of the World War, Constantinople was a chief 
goal of Russian ambition. 

The “Baltic window” Peter himself secured, by victory over 
Charles XII of Sweden, “the Glorious Madman of the North.” 
Sweden was a thinly populated country with no great natural 
resources. For a century a line of great kings and the disci¬ 
plined bravery of her soldiery had made her a leading power in 
Europe; but such leadership could hardly be permanent. She 
had grown at the expense of Russia, Poland, Denmark, and 
Brandenburg; and when Charles XII came to the Swedish 
throne (1697) as a mere boy of fifteen, these states leagued 
against him. 

Charles was a military genius, and for a long time he was 
victorious against this overwhelming coalition. But he wore 
out his resources in winning victories that did not destroy his 
huge antagonists. Early in the struggle he defeated Peter the 
Great at Narva, with an army not more than an eighth as large 
as the Russian force; but while Charles was busied in Poland 
and Germany, Russia recovered herself, and in 1709 Peter 
crushed Charles at Pultava. 


PETER THE GREAT 


239 


Peter had said that the Swedes would teach him how to beat 
them. Now this had come to pass. Sweden never recovered 
her military supremacy. Russia secured the Swedish provinces 
on the east coast of the Baltic as far north as the Gulf of Finland. 
These districts had been colonized, three centuries before, by 
German nobles (p. 87) and German civilization was strongly 
implanted there. Thus the acquisition not only gave Russia 
a door into Europe, but actually brought part of Europe inside 
Russia. It was in this new territory that Peter founded St. 
Petersburg, recently renamed Petrograd. 

The next important acquisition of territory was under the 
Empress Elizabeth, daughter of Peter, who seized part of Fin¬ 
land from Sweden. Toward the close of the century, under 
Catherine II, Russia made great progress on the south along the 
Black Sea and on the west at the expense of Poland (p. 249). 
This last change can be understood only in connection with the 
rise of Prussia. 


Peter 
reaches 
the Baltic 


\ 


Later 
growth 
to 1800 






CHAPTER XI 


PRUSSIA IN EUROPE —ENGLAND IN NEW WORLDS 


Ho'hen ° k ° f ° ne ° f the German “ marks ” established in the tenth century 
zollern as bulwarks against the Slavs (p. 87) was Brandenburg. Under 

Branded a race %^ting margraves it grew from century to century, 
b U rg an d about 1200 its ruler became one of the “Electors” of the 

Empire. In 1415, the first line of Brandenburg Electors ran 
out; and Frederick of Hohenzollern, a petty count in the Alps 
(like the Hapsburgs a century and a half before), bought Branden¬ 
burg fiom the Emperor . The new family was to play the same 
grasping part in North Germany that the Hapsburgs played 
in the South. 


The 

Hohen- 

zollerns 

gain 

Prussia 


Shortly after 1600 came the next important acquisition of 
territory. By family inheritance, the Elector of Brandenburg 
fell heir to two considerable principalities, — the duchy of 
Cleves on the extreme west of Germany, and the duchy of Prussia, 
outside the Empire on the extreme east. Prussia was the name 
of a district which the Teutonic Knights 1 had conquered in 
the fourteenth century from the heathen Slavs, and which they 
held as vassals of the king of Poland (map facing p. 177). It 
had been partly colonized by Germans, but its people remained 
for the most part a mass of Letts and Slavs. 

Thereafter the Hohenzollern Electors ruled three widely 
separated provinces, — on the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Vistula 
(map, p. 248). The object of their politics was to unite these 
regions by securing the intermediate lands. 


1 One of the Orders of fighting monks (p. 93) that grew up during the 
Crusades. The head of the Order became Duke of Prussia. One of these 
dukes, who died without direct heirs, in 1618, was a distant relative of 
the Elector of Brandenburg. 


240 


THE “GREAT ELECTOR” 


241 


w Toward the close of the Thirty Years’ War, Frederick William, The “ Gre. 
“the Great Elector,” came to the throne of Brandenburg— Elector ” 
a coarse, cruel, treacherous, shrewd ruler. The Protestants Thirty 6 
were getting the upper hand in the war. Frederick William Years ’ 
joined them, and, as his reward, at the Peace of Westphalia 
he secured eastern Pomerania. This brought Brandenburg to 
the sea. The king of Poland, too, was forced to surrender his 
feudal suzerainty over Prussia. Thus the Elector became also, 
as Duke of Prussia, an independent sovereign. 

The Great Elector now crushed out all local assemblies Paternal 
of nobles in his provinces, and all local privileges, making his des P° tism 
rule as absolute as that of Louis XIV of France. Then he 
built up an army among the largest and best in Europe, much 
more costly than his poor realms could well support. He was 
shrewd enough, however, to see the need of caring for the 
material welfare of his subjects, if they were to be able to 
support his selfish plans; and so his long reign (1640-1688) 
marks the beginning of the boasted Hohenzollern policy of “good 
government. He built roads and canals, drained marshes, 
encouraged better agriculture, and welcomed to his realms, 
with their manufactures, the Huguenot fugitives from France, 
after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. 

Frederick, son and successor of the Great Elector, was be- The 
sought by Austria to join the alliance against Louis XIV (p. 231). Jungly 
In reward for his aid, he then secured the Emperor’s consent 
to his changing the title “Elector of Brandenburg” for the 
more stately one of “King in Prussia” (1701). The second 
king of Prussia, Frederick William I, was a rude “drill sergeant,” 
memorable only as the stupid father of Frederick the Great. 

He did, however, expend what intellect he had, and what money 
he could wring from his subjects, in enlarging the Prussian army; 
and he had a curious passion for collecting “ tall soldiers ” from 
all over Europe. 

Frederick II (“ the Great ”) ascended the Prussian throne in Frederick 
1740. In the same year the Hapsburg Emperor, Charles VI, 
died without a male heir, and Frederick began his long reign wars 


242 


THE RISE OF PRUSSIA 


England 
and France 
rivals for 
world 
empire 


The “ Seven 
Years’ 

War,” 

1756-1763 


by an unjust but profitable war. The Emperor Charles had 
secured solemn pledges from the powers of Europe, including 
Prussia, that his young daughter, Maria Theresa, should suc¬ 
ceed to his Austrian possessions. But now, with his perfectly 
prepared army, without having even declared war, on a trumped- 
up claim, Frederick seized Silesia, an Austrian province. 

This high-handed act was the signal for a general onslaught 
to divide the Austrian realms. Spain, France, Savoy, Bavaria, 
each hurried to snatch some morsel of the booty. But Maria 
Theresa displayed courage and ability. Her subjects, especially 
the gallant Hungarian nobles, rallied loyally to her support, 
and, a little later, England and Holland added their strength 
to the Austrian side. This “War of the Austrian Succession” 
closed in 1748. Frederick had shown himself greedy and un¬ 
scrupulous, but also the greatest general of the age. He kept 
Silesia. Prussia now reached down into the heart of Germany 
and had become the great rival of Austria. 

Much more important, though less striking, was the contest 
outside Europe. In America a New England expedition cap¬ 
tured the French fortress of Louisburg. In India the French 
leader, Dupleix, saw the chance to secure an Asiatic empire 
for his country, and captured the English stations in that 
country. 

The treaty of peace restored matters to their former position, 
both in America and Asia, but the war made England and France 
feel more clearly than ever before that they were rivals for vast 
realms outside Europe. Whether Prussia or Austria were to 
possess Silesia, whether France or Austria were to hold the 
Netherlands, were questions wholly insignificant in comparison 
with the mightier question as to what race and what political 
ideas should hold the New Worlds. 

In 1/56 Austria began a war of revenge. M^aria Theresa 
had secured the alliance of Russia, Sweden, and even of her 
old enemy, France. Four great armies invaded Prussia from 
different directions, and Frederick’s throne seemed to totter. 
His swift action and his supreme military genius saved his 


FREDERICK II 


243 


country, in the victories of Rossbach and Leuthen. And the 
next year England entered the struggle as his ally. England 
and France had remained practically at war in America and 
India through the brief interval between the two European 
wars; 1 and now that France had changed to Austria’s side, 

England saw no choice but to support Prussia. 

In America this “Seven Years’ War” is known as the “French 
and Indian War.” The struggle was literally world-wide. 

Red men scalped one another by the Great Lakes of North 
America, and Black men fought in Senegal in Africa; while 
Frenchmen and Englishmen grappled in India as well as in 
Germany, and their fleets engaged on every sea. The most 
tremendous and showy battles took place in Germany; and, 
though the real importance of the struggle lay outside Europe,’ 
still the European conflict in the main decided the wider results. 

William Pitt, the English minister, who was working to England 
build up a great British empire, declared that in Germany he wins 
would conquer America from France. He did so. England “dia 
uimsned the funds and her navy swept the seas. Frederick from France 
and Prussia, supported by English subsidies, furnished the 
troops and the generalship for the European battles. The 
striking figures of the struggle are (1) Pitt, the great English 
imperialist, the directing genius of the war; (2) Frederick 
of Prussia, the military genius, who won Pitt’s victories in 
Germany; (3) Wolfe, who won French America from the great 
Montcalm; and (4) Clive in India. 

The story of the conquest of India calls for a brief outline. 

In that rich land of marvels, the struggle was not properly be¬ 
tween the French and English governments, but between rival 
French and English trading companies — who, however, were 
more or less backed by their governments. India had a 
densely settled population and an ancient civilization. The 
chief ruler over most of the mighty peninsula was a Moham¬ 
medan prince at Delhi, in the north, known commonly as the 
Great Mogul Under him were numerous viceroys (Nabobs), 

1 Braddock’s campaign in America (1754) took place during this interval. 


244 


EUROPEAN WARS IN AMERICA 


The Peace 
of 1763 


many of whom were really independent sovereigns in their huge 
districts. And, in the West and South, several Hindoo states 
kept their old independence under their native Rajahs. 

After 1600 this tangle of Indian government was complicated 
further by settlements of European traders with grants of 
privileges and territory from the Great Mogul or from some 
Nabob. By 1700, the French Company held many important 
posts, while the English had established themselves at Bom¬ 
bay, Madras, and Calcutta — ports widely separated even by 
sea. These English settlements were governed much as 
Virginia was for a while about a century before, by a company 
of English merchants (the British East India Company) with 
its seat in London. 

Dupleix (p. 242) had built up a powerful league of native 
states on the side of the French, and had almost driven the 
English out of India. But now he had been recalled by the 
short-sighted French government, and so the ground was 
cleared lor a great English leader. Clive was an unknown 
English clerk at Madras. The native Nabob of Bengal 
treacherously seized the English post at Calcutta, induced the 
garrison to surrender on the promise of good treatment, and 
then suffocated them horribly by packing the one hundred and 
forty-six Europeans in a small, close dungeon, the famous 
Black Hole of Calcutta, through the hot tropical night. The 
young Clive was moved to vengeance. He organized a small 
expedition of a thousand Englishmen and two thousand faith¬ 
ful nati\ e troops, and at Plassey (1757) he overthrew the 
Nabob’s Oriental army of sixty thousand men. Soon after, 
English supremacy was thoroughly established. 

The treaty of peace, in 1763, left Europe without change. But 
in India, the French retained only a few unfortified trading 
posts. In America, England received Florida from Spain, 
and Canada and the eastern half of the Mississippi Valley from 
France. France ceded to Spain the western half of the Missis¬ 
sippi Valley, in compensation for the losses Spain had incurred 































VICTORY OF ENGLISH FREEDOM 


245 


as her ally; and, except for her West Indian islands, she herself 
ceased to he an American power. England had dispossessed 
her there as she had in India. 

Spain still held South America and half North America; 
but her vast bulk was plainly decaying day by day. Holland’s 
wide colonial empire, too, was in decline. England stood forth 
as the leading world-power. 

The struggle in America had really been a war, not between 
Montcalm and Wolfe , but between two kinds of colonization. The 
better kind won. Man for man, the French settlers were more 
successful woodmen and Indian fighters than their English 
rivals , but they could not build a state so well. They got a good 
start first, and they had much the stronger position. But, 
after a century of such fostering care as we described on p. 224, 
the French colonies did not grow. When the final conflict began, 
m 1754, France, with a home population four times that of Eng¬ 
land, had only one twentieth as many colonists in America as 
England had — 60,000 to about 1,200,000. 

Moreover, despite her heroic leaders, the mass of French 
colonists had too little political activity to care much what 
country they belonged to, so long as they were treated de¬ 
cently. French centralization did make it possible for a capa¬ 
ble governor to wield effectively all the resources of New France ; 1 
while among the English there were interminable delays and 
disastrous jealousies. But the English needed to win only once. 
If Montcalm had conquered Wolfe, and had then been able to 
occupy Boston and New York, he could never have held them 
even as long as King George did a few years later. The colonists 
would have fought the French with vastly more determination 
than they did England in the Revolution. But Wolfe’s one 
victory at Quebec settled the fate of the continent. 

The lack of political vitality and of individual enterprise in 
industry was the fatal weakness of New France. The opposite 

1 The advantage was offset by a tendency to corruption which always 
threatens a despotic system. Says Parkman (Montcalm and Wolfe, II, 30), 
Canada was the prey of official jackals.” Of this his volumes give many 
illustrations. 


Why 

England 

won 

America 


246 


EUROPE IN AMERICA 


The 

American 

Revolution 


qualities made England successful. Says John Fiske: “ It 

is to the self-government of England, and to no lesser cause, that 
we are to look for the secret of that boundless vitality which has 
given to men of English speech the uttermost parts of the earth 
for an inheritance ” 

The American Revolution is the next chapter in this series 
of wars. That war began because the English government 
unwisely insisted upon managing American affairs after the 
Americans were quite able to take care of themselves. Its 
real importance, even to Europe, lay in the establishment 
of an independent American nation and in teaching England, 
after a while, to improve her system of colonial government. 1 
But at the time, France and Spain saw in the American Revo¬ 
lution a chance to revenge themselves upon England by help¬ 
ing the best part of her empire to break away. 

England did lose most of her empire in America; but she 
came out of the war with gains as well as losses, and with 
glory little tarnished. She had been fighting, not America 
alone, but France, Spain, Holland, and America. Theodore 
Roosevelt has put finely the result and character of this wider 
struggle ( Gouverneur Morris, 116) : 

“England, hemmed in by the ring of her foes, fronted them with a 
grand courage. In her veins the Berserker blood was up, and she hailed 
each new enemy with grim delight, exerting to the full her warlike 
strength. Single-handed she kept them all at bay, and repaid with crip¬ 
pling blows the injuries they had done her. In America, alone, the tide 
ran too strong to be turned. But Holland was stripped of all her colo¬ 
nies ; in the East, Sir Eyre Coote beat down Hyder Ah, and taught Mos¬ 
lem and Hindoo alike that they could not shake off the grasp of the iron 
hands that held India; Rodney won back for his country the supremacy 

1 The English colonial system in America had not been cruel or tyrannical 
nor seriously hampering in industry. Indeed, on both the industrial and 
political side, it was vastly more liberal than was the colonial policy of any 
other country in that age. But after Canada fell to England (p. 244), so 
that the colonists in the English colonies no longer feared French conquest, 
they began to resent even the slight interference of the English government.' 
The freest people of the age, they were ready and anxious for more freedom. 
Cf. West’s American People, pp. 185—191. 


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 


247 


of the ocean in that great sea-fight where he shattered the splendid 
French navy, and the long siege of Gibraltar [p. 233 ] closed with the 
crushing overthrow of the assailants. So, with bloody honor, England 
ended the most disastrous war she had ever waged.” 

The secessiori of the American colonies did not injure England , 
as her friends and foes had expected it to do. The commerce 
of the United States continued to be carried on mainly through 
England, and, very soon, the new nation, with its growing 
wealth, was buying more English goods than the old colonies 



Crossed Swords of Colonel William Prescott and Captain John Linzee, who 
fought on opposite sides at Bunker Hill. A grandson of Prescott and a 
granddaughter of Linzee married, and the offspring of this marriage 
mounted the swords in this way “ in token of international friendship and 
family alliance.” From a photograph of the mounted swords, which are 
now in the room of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 

had been able to pay for. For her territorial loss, England 
found compensation, too, to some degree, in the acquisition of 
Australia. 

Just before the American Revolution began, Russia, Prussia, 
and Austria united to murder the old kingdom of Poland, so 
as to divide the carcass. The anarchy of Poland gave its neigh¬ 
bors excuse. The population consisted of about twelve million 
degraded serfs, and one hundred thousand selfish, oligarchic 
nobles. The latter constituted the government. They met 
in occasional Diets, and, when the throne became vacant, they 
elected the figurehead king. Unanimous consent was required 
for any vote in the Diet, — each noble possessing the right 
of veto. 

Under such conditions, the other Powers of Europe had 
begun to play with Poland at will. Catherine II of Russia 


“ Parti¬ 
tion ” of 
Poland 















248 THE AGE OF FREDERICK THE GREAT 



1HH 


mk 


WSmSm 

Mi»mi.sfis 


If 

UMi 


311®= 

l*® 

:"§fe 3 


A -v: 


&8SS 




A\O v 

\'E' 


L.L. PoKteS, ENGR.,N.Y. 



































































































THE PARTITIONS OF POLAND 


249 


determined to seize a large part of the country. Frederick II 
persuaded Austria to join him in compelling Catherine to share 
the booty. 

The “First Partition,” in 1772, pared off a rind about the 
heart. The Second and Third Partitions (1793, 1795), which 
completed the work and “assassinated the kingdom,” had not 
even the pretext of misgovernment in Poland. The Poles 
had undertaken sweeping reforms, and the nation made an 
heroic defense under its hero-leader Kosciusko; but the 
great robbers wiped Poland off the map. Russia gained far 
the greatest part of the territory , and she now bordered Germany 
on the east, as France did on the west. 

Plainly the true policy of the Germans, early and late, would 
have been the honest one of supporting the “ buffer states ” — 
Poland and Burgundy — against the greed of Russia and 
France. Failure to do so left Germany exposed to immediate 
attack by powerful enemies and compelled her to build up 
artificial frontiers of fortresses and bayonets. 

Frederick II had shown himself a greedy robber and a mili¬ 
tary genius. With brutal cynicism he avowed absolute freedom 
from moral principle where a question of Prussia’s power was 
at stake. Success, he declared, justified any means. This 
faithlessness he practiced, as well as taught; and his success 
made this policy the creed of later Hohenzollerns. 

But there was another side to Frederick’s life, which, 
more properly than his war or his diplomacy, earns him his 
title of “the Great.” Most of his forty-six years’ reign was 
passed in peace, and he proved a father to his people. The 
beneficent work of the Great Elector was taken up and carried 
forward vigorously. Prussia was transformed. Wealth and 
comfort increased by leaps. The condition of the peasantry 
was improved, though, of course, they remained serfs; and the 
administration in all its branches was made economical and 
efficient. Unlike all the earlier Hohenzollerns, Frederick was 


Frederick 
“ the 
Great ” 
in peace 


250 THE AGE OF FREDERICK THE GREAT 


The 

“ benevo¬ 
lent 

despots ” 


also a patron of literature, though he admired only the artificial 
French style of the age, and he was himself an author. 

Frederick is a type of the “crowned philosophers,” or “ benevo¬ 
lent despots,” who sat upon the thrones of Europe in the latter 
half of the eighteenth century, just before the French Revolu¬ 
tion. Under the influence of a new enlightened sentiment, 
created by a remarkable school of French writers (p. 260), 
government underwent a marvelous change. It was just as 
aristociatic as before, no more by the people than before, — 
but despots did try to govern for the people, not for themselves. 
Sovereigns began to speak of themselves, not as privileged 
proprietors, but, in Frederick s phrase, as “ the first servants 
of their states.” 

Catherine of Russia, Charles III of Spain, Leopold, Arch¬ 
duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand of Naples, Joseph II of Austria, 
all belonged to the class of philosophic, liberal-minded, “ benevo¬ 
lent despots,” of this period. In Sweden and Portugal two 
great ministers sought to impose a like policy upon the kings. 
All these rulers 'planned far-reaching reforms, — the abolition 

of serfdom, the building up of public education, and the reform 
of the church. 

Frederick’s genius and tireless energy accomplished some-* 
thing for a time; but on the whole the monarchs made lamen¬ 
table failures. One man was powerless to lift the inert weight 
of a nation. The clergy and nobles, jealous for their privi¬ 
leges, opposed and thwarted the royal will. Except in Eng¬ 
land and France, there was no large middle class to supply 
friendly officials and sympathy. The kings, too, wished no 
participation by the people in the reforms: everything was to 
come from above. When the “benevolent despots” had to 

choose between benevolence and despotism they always chose 
despotism. 

The most remarkable, and in some ways the greatest of 
these philosophic despots, was Joseph II of Austria, the son 
of Maria Theresa. His task was harder than that of any of 
his fellows because his realms were so heterogeneous, — 


THE BENEVOLENT DESPOTS 


251 


peopled by Germans, Hungarians, South-Slavs, Poles, Bo¬ 
hemians, Italians, Netherlanders. Joseph sought to abolish 
the ancient local distinctions in these varying districts, to 
introduce one orderly government, with one official language 
(German), and within his new state to foster education, abolish 
monasteries, establish freedom of religion, and even to do away 
with serfdom. All noble and clerical classes, however, resisted 
him fiercely; and Joseph died disheartened, dictating for 
himself the epitaph, “ Here lies a king who designed many 
benefits for his people, but who was unable to accomplish any 
of them.” 

The kings had failed to bring about sufficient reform; and 
now , in France , the people were to try for themselves. 

Further Reading upon the subject of the last three chapters may 
profitably be confined to a continuation of that proposed at the close of 
Chapter vii, on the Expansion of Europe into the New Worlds. George 
Burton Adams’ essay, “Anglo-Saxon Expansion,” in the Atlantic 
Monthly for April, 1897, is excellent reading. For the great struggle in 
America, the student should read Parkman’s Works, especially his Mont¬ 
calm and Wolfe and his Half Century of Conflict. The following biog¬ 
raphies, too, are good: Wilson’s Clive , Malleson’s Dupleix and Lord 
Clive, Bradley’s Wolfe, Bright’s Maria Theresa, Bain’s Charles XII, 
Lyall’s Warren Hastings, Morley’s Walpole, and Bury’s Catherine II. 

REVIEW EXERCISES 

1. Fact Drills. 

a. Dates with their significance : 1520,1618-1648,1640-1649,1660, 
1688, 1713, 1740, 1763, 1776, 1783. 

h. List ten important battles between 1500 and 1789. 

2. Review by countries, with “catch-words,” from 1500, or from con¬ 

venient event of about that date, and review English history 
from Alfred the Great to the French Revolution. 

3. Make a brief paragraph statement for the period 1648-1787, to 

include the changes in territory and in the relative power of the 
different European states. 


PART IV 


A true 
“ revolu¬ 
tion ” 


THE PEENOH EEVOLTJTION 

You must touch thut the FTench Revolution wus un unmitigated cvime 
uguinst God und mun. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, in an address 
to teachers of history. 

The Revolution wus u cveuting force, even move thun u destro^jing one. 
It wus un inexhuustihle source of fertile influences. — Frederic Har¬ 
rison. 

The student may well bear in mind these opposing views as he 
studies the following chapters. 


CHAPTER XII 

ON THE EVE 

Italy had started for the world an intellectual revolution; 
Germany, a religious revolution; now France was to start the 
political and social revolution in Europe. More than any of 
the earlier “revolutions” in history, too, the French upheaval 
deserves the name revolution. The English Revolution of 1688 
swept away a temporary interference with old lines of growth; 
it was a “conservative revolution,” restoring the nation to an 
old groove. The American Revolution was merely a sudden 
step forward in a direction in which America had long been 
progressing: it did not change habits of life or of thought. But 
the French Revolution overturned and destroyed a society that, 
had been growing up for centuries; it cut loose from the past; 
and it started France upon new lines of growth. 

I. THE ABUSES 

France had a population of 25 millions. One out of each hun¬ 
dred was a “ privileged” drone — a noble or a clergyman. Thes.> 

252 




FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


253 


two orders, together, owned half the soil and all the fine build¬ 
ings. They had many “special privileges” by law, and were 
exempt from the most burdensome taxes. Moreover, they 
received, in pensions and in sinecure 1 salaries, a large part of 
the crushing taxes paid by the nation, besides taking directly 
from the peasant a fourth of his income in church dues and 
feudal payments. 

The privileged nobles rendered no service to society. They 
had been useful in early times, but the kings now gave all 
political offices to men of the lower classes, and the nobles 
themselves abandoned their remaining duty, as captains of 
local industry, to become mere courtiers. Said Arthur Young, 
an English gentleman who traveled extensively in France just 
before the Revolution, — “ Exile alone forces the French noble 
to do what an English noble does by preference : to reside upon 
his estate, to improve it.” 

The higher clergy, bishops and abbots, were all from noble 
families, — younger sons who were provided for by office in 
the church. They received immense revenues for doing noth- 
i n g> — P a yi n g paltry sums to subordinates who did their work, 
while they themselves lived at court in idle luxury or vice. 
The village priests lived on mere pittances. They were not 
“privileged.” They numbered many devoted men, and the 
Revolution found them mostly on the side of the people. 

The quarter million of privileged drones were supported by 
twenty-three millions of unprivileged, overburdened workers, — the 
peasants and the workmen in towns. 

Arthur Young (above) describes bitterly the hideous wretched¬ 
ness of the peasantry. Among other piteous stories, he tells 
of a woman whom he talked with on the road and whom he 
supposed to be seventy years old, but who proved to be only 
twenty-seven. Toil, want, and hard fare robbed the workers 
of youth and life. Famine was chronic in the fertile land of 
France, as it has been in Russia in recent years. Taxation and 

1 A sinecure is an office to which no duties are attached (“without 
care”). 


The 

privileged 

few 


The 

nobles 


The 

clergy 


The 

peasants 


254 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Survivals 
of serfdom 


feudal extortion discouraged farming. A fourth of the land lay 
waste. Of the rest, the tillage was poor, — little better than a 
thousand years before. The yield was a third less than in 
England. And if crops failed in one province, starvation fol¬ 
lowed, although neighboringprovinces might possess abundance. 
Poor roads, and high tolls, and poverty, and the government’s 
carelessness made it impossible for one district to draw relief 
from another. 

At other times, when things were not so bad, great numbers 
lived on a coarse bread made of bran and bark and acorns — 
because of which, says an official report of the time, “the chil¬ 
dren very commonly die.” 

Conditions varied greatly, however, in different parts of 
France, and in some districts the peasants were fairly prosper¬ 
ous. As a whole they were far ahead of the peasants in Ger¬ 
many or Italy or Spain or Austria, though vastly below the 
English peasants. They played a part in the Revolution be¬ 
came they had already progressed far enough to feel discontent 
and the 'possibility of f urther progress . 

A million and a half were still serfs, but these were nearly all 
in Alsace or Lorraine, — regions seized from Germany not long 
before (pp. 177, 230 ff.), where German serfdom still lingered. 
Elsewhere they had become free in person, and many of them 
owned little garden spots of land. 

But even when the peasant owned land, he owned it subject 
to many ancient feudal obligations. He could leave it, if he 
liked (with no chance to do better); and he could not be turned 
off so long as he made the customary payments in labor and 
m Produce. That is, he had advanced out of serfdom to a state 
of villeinage somewhat like that of the English villeins before 
the Peasant Rising of 1381. Like them, a French peasantwas 
oppressed by a lot of annoying and costly restrictions, which 
varied somewhat from place to place. In general, he could not 
sell his land without buying his lord’s consent, or sell any of 
his crop except in the lord’s market, with tolls for the privilege. 
Commonly, he could still grind his grain only at the lord’s 


THE ABUSES 


255 


mill, leaving one sixteenth the flour, and he could bake only 
in the lord s oven, leaving a loaf each time in pay. 

Most grievous of all the feudal burdens were the nobles’ rights 
to * hunt. The peasant must not under any circumstances 
injure the rabbits or pigeons or deer that devoured his crop; 
but the nobles at will might ride over the crops to chase the 
game. On penalty of death, the peasant might not carry a 
gun, even to kill wolves He could not enter his own field, 
to till it, when the pheasants were hatching or the rabbits were 

young. Year after year the crops were trampled by huntsmen 
or devoured by game. 

In the towns the laborers were little better off than those Town 
in the country. Writers of the time describe them as pallid, workers 
haggard, dwarfed, — “ sullen masses of rags and misery,’’ 
huddled in garrets and cellars. The gild system of the Middle 
Ages had lost its usefulness, but remained, except in England 
(p. 185), with all its old power to interfere with individuals. 
Commonly it forbade a master to keep more than one appren¬ 
tice, or to sell any goods which he had not himself manufactured. 

A “cobbler” who mended shoes could not make new ones. A 
baker could make bread, but not cakes. A hatter in Paris who 
improved his hats (and took trade from otheT hatters) by 
mixing silk in his wool, had his whole stock burned, because 
gild regulations ordered “pure wool” for hats. The “masters” 
decided when to admit journeymen to their class; and if a 
journeyman ventured to manufacture by himself before being 
so admitted, the government sent him to prison or to the 
galleys, and seized his goods. In general, the gild regulations 
kept the poorer workmen from any chance to rise into the 
better paid trades, and hampered the prosperity even of the 
shopkeepers and small manufacturers. 

We have surveyed the narrow apex and the broad base of The 
society. Between the two came an important middle class, 1111(1(116 
composed of bankers, lawyers, physicians, men of letters, mer¬ 
chants, and shopkeepers (gild “masters”). This class was 
smaller than the “ middle class ’ ’ in England, but much larger 


256 


FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


National 

bankruptcy 


Shameful 

taxation 


than in any other European country. It was to furnish most 
of the leaders of the Revolution, and, indeed, to make a revolu¬ 
tion possible. 

The immediate occasion for the Revolution was the bank¬ 
ruptcy of the government. The monarchy felt no responsi¬ 
bility to the nation, and so it spent money extravagantly, 
wastefully, wickedly. Louis XIV, we have seen, left France 
burdened with a huge debt. The cynical, dissolute Louis XV 
wasted as much in vice as his predecessor had wasted in war. 
Much of the rest of the revenue was given away in pensions to 
unworthy favorites and needy nobles, or stolen by corrupt 
officials. 

There was no “ national ” treasurer. All the receipts from 
taxation were subject to the king’s order — as if they had been 
his private banking account. No report was made to the 
nation as to how taxes were spent; but some facts leaked out. 
On the eve of the Revolution, three maiden aunts of the king re¬ 
ceived $120,000 a year for their food — most of which, of course, 
went to enrich dishonest servants. Some $17,000,000 went each 
year in grants to members of the royal family and in pensions. 
This amounted to about $50,000,000 in our values to-day. 

The treasury, emptied in these shameful ways, was filled 
in ways equally shameful. Taxes were frightful, but the 
privileged orders practically escaped them. The clergy were 
exempt by law, and the nobles escaped by their influence. The 
richest man in France, the Duke of Orleans, stated the case 
frankly. “I make arrangements with the tax officials,” he 
said, and pay only what I wish.” Large numbers of the 
wealthier men of the middle class escaped also, often by purchas¬ 
ing exemption in the form of sinecure offices connected with 
the royal household. 

Thus payment was made only by those least able to pay; and 
various clumsy devices made the collection needlessly burden¬ 
some even on them (p. 238). Two of the many direct taxes 
were especially offensive and oppressive. 


THE BURDENED WORKERS 257 

1. The peasant was compelled to leave his own work, no 
matter how critical the harvest time, at the call of an official, 

to toil without pay on roads or other public works. This labor 
tax was called the corvee. 

2. The chief tax had once been a land tax. This now was 
assessed only on peasant villages, and it had become a wholly 
arbitrary tax , fixed each year by the government. On one 
occasion, an official wrote: “The people of this village are 
stout, and there are chicken feathers before the doors. The 
taxes here should be greatly increased next year.” So, too, if 
a villager lived in a better house than his neighbors, the officials 
made him pay a larger share of the common village tax. So the 
peasants concealed jealously what few comforts they had, and 
left their cottages in ruins. 

It has been estimated that on the average a peasant paid 
half his income in direct taxes to the government. Feudal dues 
and church tithes raised these payments to over four fifths his 
income. From the remaining one fifth, he had not only to 
support his family but also to pay various indirect taxes. 

The most famous indirect tax was that upon salt. 1 This 
was called the gabelle. It raised the price of salt many times 
its first value. No salt could be bought except from the gov¬ 
ernment agents, and every family was compelled by law to 
purchase from these agents at least seven pounds a year for 
every member over seven years of age. This amount, too, was 
for the table only. If the peasant salted down a pig, he must 
buy an additional supply for that purpose. To make this 
absurd condition worse, the people in some districts in France 
had to pay twice, five times, or ten times as much by way of 
salt tax as did their neighbors in adjoining districts. Thousands 
of persons every year were hanged or sent to the galleys for 
trying to evade the tax. 

This salt tax was “farmed” to collectors, who paid the govern- 

1 The man who sold the salt paid the tax to the government. The man 
who bought salt had of course to pay back the tax in a higher price. A tax 
collected in this way is called an indirect tax. 


The 
salt tax 


258 


FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


Complex 

tariffs 


The 

govern¬ 

ment 


ment a certain amount down, and then secured what they 
could get above that amount for their own profit. Only one 
fifth the amount collected reached the treasury. Many other 
indirect taxes on candles, fuel, grain, and flour — were 
farmed out in similar fashion. 

Another class of vexatious indirect taxes were the tolls 
and tariffs on goods. These payments were required not only at 
the frontier of France, but again and again, at the border of 
each province and even at the gate of each town, as the goods 
traveled through the country. Workmen who crossed a river 
from their homes in one district to their day’s work in another 
had to pay a tariff on the luncheon in their pockets; and fish, 

on their way to Paris from the coast, paid thirteen times their 
first cost in such tolls. 

The government was a centralized despotism (p. 19). Di- 
rectly about the king was a Council of State. Subject to 
the king’s approval, it fixed the taxes and the levy for 
the army, drew up edicts, and indeed ruled France. Its 

members were appointed by the king, and held office only 
at his pleasure. 

France was made up of about thirty districts, which corre¬ 
sponded roughly to the old feudal provinces. At the head of 
each such province was a governor appointed by the king. 
Subject to the royal power, he was an unchecked despot, with 
tremendous power for good or evil. 

In the parish the mayor or syndic was sometimes chosen by 
the people, sometimes appointed by the governor; but the 
governor could always remove him at will. The parish assembly 
could not meet without the governor’s permission, and it could 
not take a ny action by itself. Had the wind damaged the 
parish steeple? The parish might petition for permission to 
repair it, — at their own expense, of course. The governor 
would send^ the petition, with his recommendation, to the 
Council of State at Paris, and a reply might be expected in a 
year or two. Tocqueville declares {France before the Revolution) 
that in the musty archives he found many cases of this kind 


THE SPIRIT OF CHANGE 


259 


where the original sum needed for the repairs would not have 
exceeded five dollars. 

The government could send any man in France to prison 
without trial, merely by a “letter” with the royal seal. Such 
“ letters °f the seal” were not only used to remove political 
offenders, but they were also often given, or sold , to private 
men who wished to remove rivals. The government of Louis 
XV issued 150,000 such letters. 

Usually the imprisonments were for a few months; but 
sometimes the wretch was virtually forgotten and left to die in 
prison, perhaps without ever learning the cause of his arrest. 
Arthur Y oung (p. 253) tells of an Englishman who had been kept 
in a French prison thirty years, although not even the govern¬ 
ment held a record of the reason. Very properly did Blackstone, 
the English law writer, class France with Turkey as countries 
where “ personal liberty ” was “ wholly at the mercy of the ruler.” 

This centralized machinery was clumsy. It was complicated 
by the fact that France was still a patchwork of territories 
which had been seized piece by piece by the kings. Each 
province had its own laws and customs, its own privileges and 
exemptions or partial exemptions, as with the salt tax. Voltaire 
complained that in a journey one changed laws as often as he 
changed horses. France was covered with shadows of old local 
go\ ernments, which had lost their power for action, but which 
remained powerful to delay and obstruct united action. 

II. THE SPIRIT OF CHANGE 

A revolution, it has been said, requires not only abuses 
but also ideas. The combustibles were ready; so were the men 
of ideas, to apply the match. 

Science had upset all old ideas about the world outside man. 
The telescope had proved that other planets like our earth 
revolved around the sun, and that myriads of other suns whirled 
through boundless space; and the English Newton had shown 
how this vast universe is bound together by the unvarying 
“laws” of unseen gravitation. The microscope had revealed 


Arbitrary 

imprison¬ 

ment 


An 

inefficient 

despotism 


The 

revolution 
in ideas 


260 


FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


Voltaire 
and his 
associates 


an undreamed-of world of minute life in air and earth and 
water all around us; and air, earth, water (and fire) themselves 
had changed their nature. The Ancients had taught that they 
were the “original elements” out of which everything else was 
made up. But the French Lavoisier, founder of modern chem¬ 
istry, had lately decomposed water and air into gases, and shown 
that fire was a union of one of these gases with earthy carbon. 

Such a revolution, in the way of looking at the material 
world, prepared men to ask questions about the world of men 
and society. Tradition and authority had been proven silly in 
the first field: perhaps they were not always right in the other 
field. England, with its freedom of speech and of the press, 
had led in this revolt against the authority of the past. But 
English writers were relatively cautious. Their speculations 
were carried much farther by French writers who quickly 
spread their influence over all Europe. About 1750 there began 
an age of dazzling brilliancy in French literature and scholarship. 
Never before had any country seen so many and so famous men 
of letters at one time. Of the scores, we can mention only four 
foremost ones — Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, and Rousseau. 

Voltaire, in 1750, had already won his fame, and he ruled as 
the intellectual monarch of Europe for thirty years more. 
He came from the middle class. As a young man, the king had 
imprisoned him for libel by a “letter of the seal”; and a dis¬ 
sipated noble, angered by a witticism, had hired a band of 
ruffians to beat him nearly to death. Some years of exile he 
spent in England, where, he says, he “learned to think.” Most 
of his writing was destructive; but the old in Europe needed 
to be swept away, before new growth could start. He had 
biting satire, mocking wit, keen reasoning, and incisive, vigor¬ 
ous style. So armed, he attacked daringly the absurdities in 
society and the superstitions and scandals of the church. 

He i ailed at absentee bishops of licentious lives; he ques¬ 
tioned the privileges of the nobles; and he pitilessly exposed 
the iniquity of the gabelle and of the “letters of the seal.” 
The church seemed to him the chief foe to human progress; 


VOLTAIRE AND ROUSSEAU 


261 


and in his invective against its abuses he sometimes confused 
it with Christianity itself. So too did most of the other 
writers in this brilliant company. But “ their glory lies not 
in their contempt for things holy, but in their scorn for things 
unjust.” Voltaire’s powerful plea for religious tolerance and his 
lifelong exposure of the folly and wrong of religious persecution 
had much to do with creating the free atmosphere in which we 
live to-day. We must 
remember that many of 
his books were burned by 
order of the church and 
the government, and that 
he ran grave personal 
risks. Our American Low¬ 
ell says, “We owe half 
our liberty to that leering 
old mocker”; and Pro¬ 
fessor Jowett of Oxford, 
an English Churchman, 
declares that Voltaire “ did 
more good than all the 
Fathers of the Church 
together.” He is often incorrectly called an atheist. He was 
not a Christian, but he was a deist, — a firm believer in a God 
revealed in nature and in the human soul. 

Montesquieu, in a famous book, The Spirit of Laics, contrasted 
French despotism with constitutional liberty in England. 

In 1751 Diderot and a group of companions published the 
first volume of the great French Encyclopedia, a work which 
was completed twenty years later, in thirty-seven volumes. 
The purpose of “the Encyclopedists” was to gather up all 
the results of the new science and new thought, and to make 
them known to larger numbers. In particular, they criticized 
religious persecution and the salt tax and like abuses in govern¬ 
ment; and on every occasion they wrote of the benefits of 
industry and commerce. Says John Morley, “They were 












262 


FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


Rousseau 

and 

democracy 


Fashionable 

liberalism 


vehement for the glories of peace, and passionate against the 
brazen glories of war.” The Encyclopedia has been called 
a “rising in battle array of all the men of the new era against 
all the powers of the past.” 

Voltaire and his fellows admired the constitutional monarchy 
of England; but they looked for reform rather from some 
enlightened, philosophic despot. One alone among them stood 
for democracy. This was Rousseau. He wrote much that 
was absurd about an ideal “state of nature” before men “in¬ 
vented governments” and created an “artificial civilization”; 
but he taught, more forcefully than any man before him, the 
sovereignty of the whole people. His most famous book (The 
Social Contract, 1762) opens with the words, “Man was born 
free, but he is now everywhere in chains ”; and it argues pas¬ 
sionately that it is man’s right and duty to recover freedom. 
Rousseau’s moral earnestness and enthusiasm made his doctrine 
almost a religion with his disciples. He was the prophet of the 
political side of the coming Revolution. 

Some years before the French Revolution began, the 
ideas, and even some of the phrases, of Rousseau began 
to have a powerful influence in America. They did not 
create the American Revolution, but they helped that 
great movement to justify itself in words. Passages in 
the Declaration of Independence, and in many of the 
original State constitutions about natural equality and 
freedom, are popularly supposed to be due to American 
admiration for Rousseau. Rousseau, however, drew these 
ideas to a great extent from John Locke and other English 
writers of the seventeenth century; and we cannot always 
tell whether an American document is affected by Rousseau 

or directly by the older but less impressive English 
literature. 

When the French writers began to attack hoary abuses, they 
ran extieme personal risks and played an heroic part. The 
same movement, however, that produced these men of letters 


LIBERALISM GROWS FASHIONABLE 263 

was at work in all social circles. The writers intensified the 
movement, and, before long, criticism of existing arrangements 
became general. Liberalism, in words if not in acts, became 
fashionable. 

Even the privileged orders began to talk about their own 
uselessness. When the great noble in a popular play was asked 
what he had done to deserve all his privileges, and when his 
lackey answered for him, ‘‘Your Excellency took the trouble 
to be born,” the audience of nobles in the boxes laughed and 
applauded. 

Upon the whole, however, the mass of the privileged classes 
remained selfish and scornful. The chief influence of the new 
'philosophy was in its effect upon the unprivileged masses. The 
third estate became conscious of its wrongs and of its power. 
Said a famous pamphlet by Sieyes on the eve of the Revolution, 
“ What really is the third estate? Everything. What has it been 
so far in the state? Nothing. What does it ask? To be some¬ 
thing .” And at the same time the privileged orders were often re¬ 
ferred to merely as a “ malign ulcer ” which ought to be cut out 
of the social body. 

III. THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS REFORMS, 1774-1789 

In 1774 the dissolute but able Louis XV was succeeded by the 
well-disposed but irresolute Louis XVI. This prince had a 
vague notion of what was right and a general desire to do it, but 
he lacked moral courage and will power. His weakness was as 
harmful to France as his predecessor’s wickedness. He aban¬ 
doned the wisest policy and the best ministers, rather than 
face the sour looks of the courtiers and the pouts of the queen. 

The queen was Marie Antoinette, daughter of the great 
Maria Theresa of Austria. She was young, high-spirited, and 
lovely, but ignorant, frivolous, and selfishly bent upon her own 
pleasures. The king was greatly influenced by her, and almost 
always for evil. 

Reform began, and finally the Revolution began, because 
the royal treasury was bankrupt. When Louis XVI came to 


Louis XVI 


Marie 

Antoinette 


264 


FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


Turgot’s 

reforms 


Necker’s 
Report 


the throne, the national debt was some five hundred million 
dollars, a huge sum for that day, and it was increasing each 
year by ten million dollars more. This condition stirred Louis 
to spasmodic attempts at reform, and he called to his aid 

Turgot, a man of letters, a reformer, and an experienced ad¬ 
ministrator. 

Turgot had been a Provincial governor for many years, and 
had made remarkable improvements in his district. Now he 
set about conferring still greater benefits on all France. He 
abolished the forced labor on the roads, the internal tariffs 
on grain, and the outgrown gilds with their tyrannical 
restrictions. "The right to labor," said his public proclama¬ 
tion on this occasion, "is the most sacred of all possessions. 
Every law by which it is limited violates the ‘Natural Rights’ 
of man, and is null and void." He also cut down the frivolous 

expenses of the court, and curtailed the absurd pension list 
remorselessly. 

He planned other vast and far-reaching reforms, — to 
recast the whole system of taxation, to equalize burdens, to 
abolish feudal dues, and to introduce a system of public educa- 
tion: “a whole pacific French Revolution in that head,” says 
Carlyle. But the nobles grumbled sullenly at the prospect of 
having to bear their proper share of taxation; the courtiers 
ooked black; the queen hated the reformer, who interfered 
with her pleasures; and so Louis grew cold, and, after only 
twenty months, dismissed the man who might perhaps have 
saved France from a revolution of violence. 

All Turgots reforms were swiftly undone; but, in 1776, 
Necker, another reformer, was called to the helm. Necker was 
not a great statesman like Turgot, but he was a good business 
man with liberal views, and he might have accomplished some¬ 
thing for the treasury if his difficulties had not been tremen¬ 
dously augmented in an unforeseen manner. In 1778 France 
joined America in her war against England (p. 246). The new 
“loans” 1 to support the expense of the war increased the 

■ When a nation sells bonds to raise money, the proceeding is called a loan. 


NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY 


265 


national debt, and made it even more impossible to pay the 
annual interest. 

Then Necker laid before the king a plan for sweeping reform, 
much along Turgot’s lines; but the universal outcry of the 
privileged classes caused Louis to dismiss him from office (1781). 

But Necker had let the nation know, for the first time, just how 
it was being plundered, and to what base ends. His “Plan” had 
been accompanied by a “report” on the finances. This paper 
set forth plainly just how much money was raised; by what 
taxes it was raised; and how it had been spent — mainly on 
the court and its unworthy pastimes. This report was 
printed, and was eagerly read over all France by the middle 
class. 

Meantime, however, all the old abuses were restored for a 
time; and a new minister of finance, the courtly Calonne, 
adopted the policy of an unscrupulous bankrupt, and tried to 
create credit by lavish extravagance. For some years this 
was successful; but in 1786 the treasury was running behind 
to the amount of forty million dollars a year! Even adroit 
Calonne could borrow no more money to pay expenses or interest. 
Under these conditions, the minister persuaded Louis to call 
together the “Notables of France.” 

The Notables were composed of only such leading nobles and 
clergy as the king pleased to summon; but they came from all 
parts of France, and they at least represented France better 
than the little clique of courtiers did. To this amazed gathering, 
Calonne, the pet minister of the court, suggested the hated 
plan of Turgot and of Necker, — that the privileged orders 
give up their exemption from taxation. It was necessary to 
get more money, and that could be done only by taxing those 
who had something wherewith to pay. But now all cried out 
against the minister, — the few Liberals for what he had done 
in the past, the many Conservatives for what he now proposed 
to do, — and Calonne, too, had to go. 

The Notables were still stubborn; so the king dismissed them, 
and tried to force the plan upon the nobles by royal edict — 


Calonne 
and the 
Notables 


266 


FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 


Parlement SS th ® ° nly Way to avoid bankru Ptey. Before a royal edict 
of Paris was P ut in force, it had to be “registered” (put down upon a 

record) by a great law-court known as the Parlement of Paris 
~ anc ^ afterward by like bodies in the provincial capitals — 
m order that the courts might know just what the law was. 
In a few cases in past centuries, the Parlement, instead of 
registering an edict, had sent it back to the king with a list 
of their objections, in hope of securing some modification. If 
the king was determined, however, he merely summoned the 
Parlement before him and ordered them to register — which 
always had ended the matter. But the Parlement, like the 
Notables, represented the privileged orders. It refused to 
register this edict even after the royal session, and cloaked its 
dislike to reform under the excuse that the only power in France 
which could properly impose a new tax was the States General 

Louis banished the Parlement, hut it had given a rallying cry 
to the nation. 

States”* f ° r k ^ tates General (p. 86) had not met since 1614. Sug- 

General gestions for assembling it had been made from time to time, 
ever since Louis XVI became king. At the session of the 
Notables, Lafayette had called for it. Now, after the action 
of the Parlement, the demand became universal and imperious. 
Finally, August, 1788, the king yielded. He recalled Necker 
and promised that the States General should be assembled. 

faus^™f ry: The Chief institutions France were : — 

* he . ^ a monarchy, despotic and irresponsible, but in weak 

evolution hands and anxious to keep the good opinion of the nobles; 

(2) an aristocracy, wealthy, privileged, corrupt, skeptical; 

(3) an established church, wealthy and often corrupt. # 

Below, spread the masses, a necessary but ugly substructure. 
Like conditions existed over the continent. In France, as 

compared with the other large countries, the nobles had fewer 
duties, the peasantry had risen somewhat, and more of a middle 
class had grown up. That is, feudal society was more decayed, 
and the industrial state was more advanced, than in other con- 


LAFAYETTE DEMANDS THE STATES GENERAL 267 


tinental countries. This explains why the Revolution came 
in France. Revolutions break through in the weakest spots. 

First among the causes of the Revolution, we must put the 
unjust privileges of the small upper class and the crushing 
burdens borne by the great non-privileged mass. These evils 
were no greater than for centuries before, but the consciousness 
of them was greater. Not only was the system bad, but men 
knew that it was bad. The masses were beginning to demand 
reform, and the privileged classes and the government had 
begun to distrust their rights. Their power of resistance was 
weakened by such doubts. This new intellectual condition was 
due primarily to the new school of French men of letters. 

The bankruptcy of the national treasury opened the way for 
other forces to act. It started the government itself upon 
the path of reform; and the inefficiency and indecision of the 
government led the people finally to seize upon the reform move¬ 
ment themselves, — a result greatly hastened by the political 
doctrines made popular just before by Rousseau. 

The American Revolution helped directly to bring on the 
French Revolution by sinking the French monarchy more 
hopelessly into bankruptcy. In other indirect ways the Ameri¬ 
can movement contributed to that in France. Lafayette 
and other young nobles who had served in America came home 
with liberal ideas strengthened; and the French regiments 
that had fought side by side with the American yeomanry had 
imbibed democratic ideas and were soon to declare themselves 
“the army of the nation,” not of the king. Said Arthur Young 
in 1789, “The American Revolution has laid the foundation 
for another one in France.” 

Further, to run a centralized despotism with real success 
calls for a Caesar or a Napoleon. But hereditary monarchy 
in Europe in the eighteenth century had ceased to furnish 
great rulers. The American Jefferson, with some exaggeration, 
wrote from Paris in 1787 that not a king in Europe had ability 
needful to fit him for a Virginia vestryman. Louis XIV had 
been a tireless worker. But the selfish, indolent Louis XV 


268 FRANCE BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 

said to his favorite, “ Let the good machine run itself. It 
will last our time. After us, the deluge.” On his deathbed, 
the same shameless king said, — “ I should like very much to 
see how Berry will pull through.” Under “Berry” (Louis 
XVI), the “machine” went to pieces and the “deluge” came. 

For Further Reading. — Source material may be found in Robim 

son’s Readings, including some extracts from French men of letters of 
this age. 

Modern Accounts: Shailer Mathews’ French Revolution, 1-110 is 
the best one account. Mrs. Gardiner’s French Revolution, 1-32,’ is 
very good. The student should certainly read either one of these' or 
the somewhat longer account in Lowell’s Eve of the French Revolution. 
If the student can read further still, there is nothing better or more 
interesting than John Morley’s Lives of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot 
and his essays in his Miscellanies on “France in the Eighteenth Cen- 
tury” and on “Turgot.” Say’s Turgot is a good biography. 


CHAPTER XIII 

THE REVOLUTION IN TIME OF PEACE 

MAY TO AUGUST, 1789: THE ASSEMBLY AT VERSAILLES 

In electing the States General, the country was divided 
into districts. The nobility and clergy of each district came 
together to choose delegates. The delegates of the third estate 
were elected indirectly by “ electoral colleges.” In choosing 
these colleges, all taxpayers had a voice. 

But before the elections, two points had been widely and 
earnestly discussed in France. The ancient States General 
had been a meeting of three “orders” sitting in separate 
“houses,” each with one vote. For the time to which France 
had now come, this was plainly absurd. Under such an arrange¬ 
ment the two privileged orders, representing only one hundredth 
of the nation, would have two thirds the vote, and would block 
all reform. Accordingly all Liberals, like Lafayette and Sieyes, 
had urged (1) that the third estate should have twice as many 
members as either nobles or clergy; and (2) that all three orders 
should sit together and vote “by head.” The king had finally 
been induced to order the “ double representation” for the third 
estate; but the second and vital point, the manner of voting, 
he had left unsettled. 

When finally chosen, the States General consisted of about 
600 members of the third estate, 300 nobles, and 300 clergy. 
Of this last order, two thirds were village priests. The dele¬ 
gates possessed no political experience; but the bulk of the 
third estate were lawyers, and, as a whole, the gathering was 
scholarly and cultured. 

May 5, 1789, the king opened the States General at Versailles. 1 

1 Read Carlyle’s account of the procession. Louis XIV had built a 
splendid palace at Versailles, — twelve miles southwest of Paris, — and this 
place remained the favorite residence of the French kings. 

269 


Election of 
the States 
General 


270 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


One house 
or three 


The 

“ National 
Assembly ” 


The 

Tennis 

Court 

Oath 


The royal address suggested some reforms; but it was plain 
that the king hoped mainly for more taxes, and enthusiastic 
Liberals were sadly disappointed. Even Necker’s three-hour 
address, which followed the king’s, dwelt only upon the need 
for prompt action to relieve the government’s financial straits. 

The nobles and the clergy then organized as separate chambers, 
after the ancient fashion. The third estate insisted that all three 
orchis should organize in a single chamber , —where its member¬ 
ship (with some help from the liberal nobles and the priests) 
could outvote the other orders combined. There followed 
a deadlock for five weeks. 

But delay was serious. The preceding harvest had been a 
failure, and famine stalked through the land. In Paris, every 
bakeshop had its tail of men and women, standing through 
the night for a chance to buy bread. Such conditions called 
for speedy action, especially as the ignorant masses had got 
it into their heads that the marvelous States General would in 
some way make food plenty. 

Finally (June 1/), on motion of Sieyes (p. 263), an ex-priest, 
the third estate declared that by itself it represented ninety-six 
per cent of the nation, and that, with or without the other 
orders, it organized as a National Assembly} This was a revolu¬ 
tion. It changed a gathering of feudal “ Estates ” into an assembly 
representing the nation as one whole. Nothing of this kind had 
ever been seen before on the continent of Europe. 

Two days later, the National Assembly was joined by half 
the clergy (mainly parish priests) and by a few liberal nobles. 
But the next morning the Assembly found sentries at the doors 
of their hall, and carpenters within putting up staging, to pre¬ 
pare for a “ royal session.” Plainly the king was about to 
interfere. The gathering adjourned to a tennis court near by, 
and there with stern enthusiasm they unanimously took a 
memorable oath 2 never to separate until they had established the 
constitution on a firm foundation (June 20). 

1 See Anderson’s Constitutions and Documents, No. 1, for the decree. 

2 See the text in Anderson’s Constitutions and Documents, No. 2. 


NATIONAL ASSEMBLY DEFIES THE KING 271 

The idea of a written constitution had come from America. Six 
years earlier, Franklin, our minister to France, had published 
French translations of the constitutions adopted by the new 
American States. The pamphlet had been widely read, and 
much talked about. The instructions 1 of delegates to the 
Assembly had commonly called for a constitution. To make 
one became now the chief purpose of the Assembly. That 
body, indeed, soon became known as the Constituent Assembly. 

Now king and Assembly clashed. On June 23 Louis sum¬ 
moned the three estates to meet him, and told them that they 
were to oiganize as separate bodies, and to carry out certain 
specified reforms. If they failed to comply with the royal 
wishes,^the king would himself “secure the happiness of his 
people/’ The people themselves were to have no real hand in 
the reform of their country. The weak king had decided at 
last to play the impossible part of a “benevolent despot.” 

When the king left, the nobles and higher clergy followed. 
The new “National Assembly ” kept their seats. There was a 
moment of uncertainty. It was a serious matter for quiet citi¬ 
zens to brave the wrath of the ancient monarchy. Mirabeau, 
a noble who had abandoned his order, rose to remind the dele¬ 
gates of theii great oath. The royal master of ceremonies, re¬ 
entering, asked haughtily, if they had not heard the king’s 
command to disperse. “Yes,” broke in Mirabeau’s thunder; 
“but go tell your master that we are here by the power of the 
people, and that nothing but the power of bayonets shall drive 
us away. Then, on Mirabeau s motion, the Assembly decreed 
the inviolability of its members: “Infamous and guilty of 
capital crime is any person or court that shall dare pursue or 
arrest any of them,o?i whose part soever the same be commanded 

1 Nearly every gathering for choosing delegates to the Assembly had 
drawn tip a statement of grievances and had suggested reforms, for the 
guidance of its representatives. These cahiers (ka-ya') are the most valu¬ 
able source of our knowledge of France before the Revolution. See Penn¬ 
sylvania Reprints, IV, No. 5, for examples, or, more briefly, in Robinson’s 
Readings. 


Vacillation 
of the king 


272 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The 

dismissal 
of Necker 


Fall of 
the Bastille, 
July 14 


The king’s weakness prevented conflict. Paris was rising, and 
the French Guards, the main body of troops in the capital, when 
ordered to fire on the mob, rang their musket butts sullenly 
on the pavement. The next day, forty-seven nobles joined the 
National Assembly. In less than a week, the king ordered the 
rest to join. 

However, the court planned a counter-revolution, and again 
won over the weak king. A camp of several thousand veterans 
was collected near Paris, — largely German or Swiss merce¬ 
naries, who could be depended upon. Probably it was in¬ 
tended to imprison leading deputies. Certainly the Assembly 
was to be overawed. July 9, Mirabeau boldly declared to the 
Assembly that this was the royal policy; and, on his motion, 
the Assembly requested the king immediately to withdraw the 
troops. The king’s answer was to banish Necker, the idol of 
the people, who had opposed the court policy. 

This vas on the evening of July 11. About noon the next 
day, the news was whispered on the streets. Camille Des¬ 
moulins, a young journalist, pistol in hand, leaped upon a 
table in one of the public gardens, exclaiming, “Necker is 
dismissed. It is a signal for a St. Bartholomew of patriots. 
To arms! To arms !” By night the streets bristled with bar¬ 
ricades against the charge of the king’s cavalry, and the crowds 
were sacking gunshops for arms. Three regiments of the French 
Guards joined the rebels. Some rude organization was intro¬ 
duced during the next day, and, on the day following, the 
revolutionary forces attacked the Bastille. 

The Bastille was the great “state prison,” like the Tower 
in England. In it had been confined political offenders and 
victims of “letters of the seal.” It was a symbol of the “Old 
Regime,” and an object of detestation to the liberals. It had 
been used as an arsenal, and the rebels went to it at first only 
to demand arms. Refqsed admission and fired upon, they made 
a frantic attack. The fortress was virtually impregnable; 
but after some hours of wild onslaught, it surrendered to an 
almost unarmed force, — “taken,” as Carlyle says, “like 


FALL OF THE BASTILLE 


273 


Jericho, by miraculous sound/’ Then the hangers-on of the 
attacking force massacred the garrison, and paraded their heads 
on pikes through the streets. 

Out at Versailles, Louis, who had spent the day hunting and 
had retired early, was awakened to hear the news. “ What! a 
riot, then?’’ said he. “No, Sire,” replied the messenger; “a 
revolution.” The anniversary of the destruction of the Bastille 
(July 14) is still celebrated in France as the birthday of political 
liberty, like our July 4. 



Fall of the Bastille. — From an old print of a drawing by 

Prieur. 


This rising of Paris had saved the Assembly. The most Local 
hated of the courtiers fled from France in terror. The king anarch y 
visited Paris, sanctioned all that had been done, sent away his 
troops, accepted the tricolor (red, white, and blue), the badge of 
the Revolution, as the national colors , and recalled Necker. 


The fall of the Bastille gave the signal for a brief mob-rule 
over all France. In towns the mobs demolished local “bas¬ 
tilles.” In the country the lower peasantry and bands of vaga¬ 
bonds plundered and demolished castles, seeking especially 




274 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The middle 
class 

reorganize 

society 


to destroy the court rolls with the records of servile dues, and 
to slay the hated deer and pigeons. 

Each district had its carnival of plunder and bloodshed. The 
king could not enforce the law : the machinery of the old royal 
government had collapsed. The Assembly did not dare inter¬ 
fere vigorously, because it might need the mob again for its own 
piotection. Six days after the fall of the Bastille, the moderate 
Liberals proposed to issue a proclamation denouncing popular 
violence. From an obscure seat on the Extreme-Left, Robes¬ 
pierre, then an unknown deputy, protested vehemently: “Re¬ 
volt? This revolt is liberty. To-morrow the shameful plots 
against us may be renewed, and who will then repulse them if 
we declare rebels the men who have rushed to our protection ! ” 

But e\ erywhere the middle class did organize successfully against 
anarchy —and so really saved the Revolution. 1 In Paris, 
during the disorder of July 13, the electoral college of the city 
(the men who chose the delegates of Paris to the States Gen¬ 
eral) reassembled and assumed authority to act as a Municipal 
Council. In other towns the like was done, and in a few weeks, 
Fiance was covered with new local governments composed of 
the middle class. This was the easier, because in many cases 
the electoral colleges, instead of breaking up after the election, 
had continued to hold occasional meetings during the two 
months since, in order to correspond with their delegates in the 
National Assembly. 

The first act of the Paris Council had been to order that in 
each of the sixty “sections” (wards) of the city, two hundred 
men should patrol the streets, to maintain order. This, or 
something like this, was done in all the districts of France. 
This new militia became permanent. It took the name “Na¬ 
tional Guards, and in Paris Lafayette became the commander. 
Like the new municipal councils, the Guards were made up from 
the middle class, and before the middle of August, these new 
forces had restored order. 

1 Compare the failure of the middle class in Russia in the Revolution of 


ABOLITION OF PRIVILEGE 


275 


Meantime, on the evening of August 4, the discussions of the 
Assembly were interrupted by the report of a committee on the 
disorders throughout the country. The account stirred the 
Assembly deeply. A young noble, who had served in America 
with Lafayette, declared that these evils were all due to the 
continuance of feudal burdens and to the special privileges of 
his class, and, with impassioned oratory, he moved their instant 
abolition. One after another, in eager emulation, the liberal 
nobles followed, each proposing some sacrifice for his order, — 
game laws, dovecotes, tithes, exclusive right to military office, 
and a mass of sinecures and pensions. 

Every proposal was ratified with applause. Our American 
minister, Gouverneur Morris, was disgusted with the haste, and 
even Mirabeau called the scene “ an orgy of sacrifice.” On 
the other hand, the French radical, Marat, in his newspaper, 
The Friend of the People, cried out against any feeling of grati¬ 
tude. “Let us not be duped,” he wrote. “When the lurid 
flames of burning castles have illuminated France, these people 
have kindly given up their old privilege of keeping in chains 
men who have already won their liberty by arms.” But, on the 
whole, the work was necessary and noble, and it has never been 
undone. The night of August 4 saw the end of feudalism and of 
legal inequalities in Franee} This was one reason why anarchy 
and riot was so easily suppressed in the provinces. Had the 
Russian nobles been equally wise and swift in 1917, the Russian 
Revolution might have been spared much extravagance and 
anarchy. 

In three months, May 5 to August 5, France had been revolu¬ 
tionized. The third estate had asserted successfully its just 
claim to represent the nation. Its favorite motto was the 
famous phrase — Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. “ Equality ” 
it had won: the odious privileges of the aristocracy, and all 
class distinctions before the law, had been forever swept away. 
Toward “Liberty,” much progress had been made: the local 

Anderson, No. 4, and Pennsylvania Reprints, I, No. 5, give the decrees 
as finally put in order a few days later. 


August 4 
abolition 
privilege 


276 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The March 
of the 
Women, 
October 5 


units of the country had set up new popular governments, and 
had organized new citizen armies to protect them. And the 
Assembly was at work upon a new constitution for the nation 
at large. Fraternity ’ has not yet been achieved in any land. 

TO SEPTEMBER, 1791: THE ASSEMBLY IN PARIS 

Even aftei the new harvest of 1/89, food remained scarce 
and some riots continued. To maintain order, the king brought 
a regiment of soldiers to Versailles. The “ patriots,” as the 
liberal party called themselves, feared that he was again plotting 
to undo the Revolution. Extravagant loyal demonstrations at a 
military banquet emphasized the suspicion. It was reported 
that young officers, to win the favor of court ladies, had trampled 
upon the tricolor and had displayed instead the old white 
cockade of the Bourbon monarchy. 

The men of Paris tried to go to Versailles to secure the per¬ 
son of the king, but the National Guards turned them back. 
Then (October 5) thousands of the women of the market place, 
cuing that French soldiers would not fire upon women, set 
out in a wild, hungry, haggard rout to bring the king to Paris 

— away from the influence of the reactionary courtiers at 
Versailles. In their wake followed the riffraff of the city. 

Lafayette permitted the movement to go on, until there came 
near being a terrible massacre at Versailles; but his tardy 
arrival, late at night, with twenty thousand National Guards, 
restored order. In the early morning, however, the mob broke 
into the palace, and the queen’s life was saved only by the gallant 
self-sacrifice of some of her guards. The king yielded to the 
demands of the crowd and to the advice of Lafayette; and the 
same day a strange procession escorted the royal family to Paris, 

— the mob dancing in wild joy along the road before the royal 
carriage, carrying on pikes the heads of some slain soldiers, and 
shouting, “ Now we shall have bread, for we are bringing the 
baker, the baker’s wife, and the baker’s little boy.” The king’s 
brothers and great numbers of the nobles fled from France, — 


THE MARCH OF THE WOMEN 


277 


and many of these 150,000 ‘‘Emigrants” strove at foreign 
courts to stir up war against their country. 

The Assembly in Paris was no longer in danger of interference 
from the king, but during the two years more that it spent in 
making a constitution, it was threatened often with violence 
from the mob. The sessions were all open to the public, and 
the galleries jeered and hissed and threatened speakers whom 
they disliked. Sometimes, too, the mob attacked conservative 
delegates on the street. Soon, nearly a fourth of the Assembly 
withdrew, declaring that it was no longer free. 

Political clubs arose, too, and became a mighty power outside 
the Assembly. The most important of these clubs was the 
Jacobins, which took its name from the fact that it met in a 
building belonging to the Dominicans. In Paris that order 
was called Jacobins, because its first home in that city had 
been at the church of St. Jacques. 

In this Jacobin club some of the radical deputies met to 
discuss measures about to come before the Assembly. Soon 
others besides deputies were admitted, and the club became 
the center of a radical democratic party. 

Lafayette tried to organize a “Constitutionalist Club,” with 
more moderate opinions; and various attempts were made at 
royalist clubs. But the clubs, like the galleries, were best fitted 
to add strength to the radicals. 

Meantime the Assembly divided into definite political parties. 
On the Speaker’s right, the place of honor, sat the extreme Con¬ 
servatives, known from their position as the Right. They were 
reactionists, and stood for the restoration of the old order. 

Next to them sat the Right-Center. This party did not 
expect to restore the old conditions, but they did hope to 
prevent the Revolution from going any farther, and they 
wished to keep political power in the hands of the wealthy 
landowners. 

The Left-Center, the largest body, wished neither to restrict 
power to the very wealthy, nor to extend it to the very poor, 
but to intrust it to the middle class. In this group sat Mirabeau, 


Progress 
by the 
Assembly 
mob 

influence 


Political 

clubs 


Political 

parties 


278 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Lafayette, and Sieyes. Both parties of the Center wished a 
constitutional monarchy. 

The Extreme-Left comprised some thirty deputies who were 
disciples of Rousseau. They wished manhood suffrage. In 
this group sat Robespierre. 


Mirabeau 


Flight of 
the king 


In the legislatures of continental Europe a like arrangement 
of parties is still customary. The Conservatives sit on the 
right, the Liberals on the left; and they are still known as the 
Right and the Left. In England the supporters of the ministry 
sit on the right, and the opposition on the left, and the two 
parties change place with a change of ministry; so in that 
country the Left and the “ Right ” are not party names. 

One man in the Assembly was really a party in himself. 
Mirabeau (p. 271) was a marvelous orator, a statesman of 
profound insight, and a man of dauntless courage. He never 
hesitated to oppose the mob if his convictions required it; and 
often he won them to his side. But he had lived a wild and 
dissolute life, and so could not gain influence over some of 
the best elements of the Assembly. His arrogance, too, aroused 
much jealousy. Both Necker and Lafayette hated him. 

Mirabeau was resolutely opposed to anarchy, and he wanted 
a strong executive. After the “ march of the women/’ he felt 
that the danger to the Revolution lay not so much in the king 
as in the mob. Thereafter, he sought to preserve the remaining 
royal power and to direct it. He wished the king to accept 
the Revolution in good faith, and to surround himself with a 
liberal ministry chosen from the Assembly. As the mob grew 
more furious, he wished the king to leave Paris and appeal to 
the provinces of France against the capital, — only, he urged 
especially, the king must not go toward the east, lest the people 
think he meant to flee to Austria. 

The king hesitated, and Mirabeau died (April 2, 1791), 
broken down by the strain of his work and by dissolute living! 
Then Louis decided to flee, not to the French provinces, but 
to Austria, to raise war, not against the Paris mob, but against 


THE CONSTITUTION OF 1791 


279 


France and the Revolution. The plot failed, because of the 
king’s indecision and clumsiness. The royal family did get 
out of Paris (Louis in disguise as a valet), but they were recog¬ 
nized and brought back prisoners. 

This attempt of the king led to another popular rising. This “ Massacre 
time the^purpose was to force the Assembly to dethrone the king. of the 
A petition for such action, and for the establishment of a republic, de Mars ” 
was drawn up, and crowds flocked out to sign it at the Champs 
de Mars, — an open space near the city where a great celebra¬ 
tion of the fall of the Bastille had just been held. Some dis¬ 
order occurred. The municipal authorities seized the excuse to 
forbid the gathering, and finally Lafayette’s National Guards 
dispersed the jeering mob with volleys of musketry. Many 
more people were killed — unarmed people, exercising merely 
the right of petition — than there were soldiers killed when the 
women and mob of Paris had marched upon Versailles two 
years before; but those soldiers, whose heroism histories have 
chanted ever since, were largely aristocratic officers; while 
this time the slain were merely workingmen and their wives — 
and history has had little to say about it. 

This Massacre of the Champs de Mars” (July 17) marks a Split be- 
sharp division between the working class and the middle class. tween 
For the time, the latter carried the day. In the next six weeks anTthe^ 
the victorious Assembly completed and revised its two years’ Workin g 
work; and September 14, 1791, after solemnly swearing to Class 
uphold the constitution, Louis was restored to power. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1791 

First in the new constitution came a noble “ Declaration of The 
the Rights of Man” — after the example of the Bills of Rights Declaration 
in some of the American State constitutions. It proclaimed, — Rights of 

(1) “Men are born equal in rights, and remain so.” 

(2) “Law is the expression of the will of all the people. 

Every citizen has a right to a share in making it; and 
it must be the same for all.” 


280 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


A constitu¬ 
tional 
monarchy 
under 

middle-class 

control 


Attempt to 
“ decen¬ 
tralize ” 


And so on, through a number of provisions. It made all French¬ 
men equal before the law, and equally eligible to public office. 
It abolished hereditary titles and confirmed the abolition of all 
special privileges. It established jury trial, freedom of re¬ 
ligion, and freedom of the press. The great Declaration has 
justified the boast of the Assembly — that it “ shall serve as 
an everlasting war cry against oppressors.” 1 

The Declaration of Rights cared for personal liberties. The 
arrangements concerning the government secured a very large 
amount of political liberty. There was established a limited 
monarchy, with a large degree of local self-government, under 
middle-class control. 

The Central Government was made to consist of the king 
and a Legislative Assembly of one House — since an “upper” 
House would have been likely to be strongly aristocratic. 
The king could not dissolve the Assembly, and his veto could 
be overridden if three successive legislatures decided against 
him on any measure. 2 A new Assembly was to be chosen each 
second year. 

Local government was made over wholly. The historic 
provinces, with their troublesome peculiar privileges and cus¬ 
toms, were wiped from the map. France was divided into 
eighty-three “ Departments ” of nearly equal size. The Depart¬ 
ments were subdivided into districts, and the district was made 
up of communes (villages or towns, with their adjacent terri¬ 
tory). The map of France still keeps these divisions. 

Each Department and district elected a “General Council” 
and an executive board, or “Directory.” The forty thousand 
communes had each its elected Council and mayor. So much 
authority was left to the communes, that France under this 
constitution has been called “ a loose alliance of forty thousand 

Read the Declaration of the Rights of Man,” in the Pennsylvania Re¬ 
prints, I, No. 5, or in Anderson, No. 5. 

2 The new American States had just begun to try another way to limit the 
old absolute veto — permitting a two-thirds vote to override the President or 
governor. The French plan of a suspensive ’ ’ veto has been most popular 
in free countries in Europe. 


281 


THE LAND TO THE PEOPLE 

little republics.” France tried to go too fast toward “decen- 
ra ization , and, as we shall see, the plan never worked. 

The franchise was not given to all, despite the second state¬ 
ment quoted above from the Declaration of Rights. About 
one fourth of the men had no vote. A voter had to have enough 
property to pay taxes equal to three days’ wages of an artisan. 

Ihen these “active citizens,” or voters, were graded further 
according to their wealth, into three divisions. The firsi 
class could only vote. The second could hold offices in com¬ 
munes and districts, and be chosen to electoral colleges. Only 

the third, and wealthiest, class could be chosen to the higher 
offices. 

Thus political supremacy was secured to the middle class 
by two devices, — (1) graded property qualifications, and 
(2) indirect elections. Both these devices to dodge de¬ 
mocracy were used in the American States of that day. 

No American State then had manhood suffrage. 

In the disorders of 1789 people ceased to pay the old and 
unjust taxes. It was some time before new ones could be 
arranged for. Meanwhile the Assembly secured funds by 
seizing and selling the church lands — more than a fifth of 
all France. 

When the government took the revenue of the church, of 
course it also assumed the duty of paying the clergy and main¬ 
taining the churches. This led to national control of the 
church. The number of higher clergy was greatly reduced, 
and the clergy of all grades were made elective, in the same 
way as civil officers. Unfortunately they were required to take 
an oath of fidelity to the constitution in a form repulsive to 
many sincere adherents of the pope. Only four of the old 
bishops took the oath; and two thirds of the parish priests, in¬ 
cluding the most sincere and conscientious among them, were 
driven into opposition to the Revolution. The greatest error 
of the Assembly was in arraying religion against patriotism. 


Graded 

qualifica¬ 

tions 

for voting 


National 
control of 
the church 


282 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The 

peasants 

become 

landowners 


On the other hand, vast good followed from the sale of the 
church lands. At first, sales were slow; and so, with these 
lands as security, the Assembly issued paper money (assignats), 
which was received again by the government in payment for 
the lands. This currency was issued in such vast amounts 
that it depreciated rapidly — as with our “Continental” cur¬ 
rency a few years before. Serious hardships followed; but in 
the final outcome, the lands passed in small parcels into the 
hands of the peasantry and the middle class, and so laid the 
foundation for future prosperity. France became a land of 
small farmers, and the peasantry rose to a higher standard of 
comfort than such a class in Europe had ever known. 


CHAPTER XIV 


THE APPROACH OF WAR 

SEPTEMBER, 1791, TO APRIL, 1792 

France had been made over in two years, on the whole with 
little violence. The bulk of the nation accepted the result 
enthusiastically, except as to some portions of the new organiza¬ 
tion of the church. Most men believed that the Revolution 
was over. The moderate Liberals very largely withdrew from 
active politics, and did not even vote in the election of the new 
Legislative Assembly. 

On the other hand, a small but vigorous minority of radical 
spirits was dissatisfied with the restrictions on the franchise 
and with the restoration of monarchy. This minority pos¬ 
sessed undue weight, because of its organization in political 
clubs. The original Jacobin club had set up daughter societies 
in the chief towns all over France; and these daughters were 
strictly obedient to the suggestions of the mother-club in Paris. 
No other party had any political machinery whatever. More¬ 
over, the Jacobins had the sympathy of the large class that had 
no votes; and in many cases these “passive” citizens proved 
an important factor in the election, terrorizing the more con¬ 
servative elements by mob-violence. 

The Constituent Assembly had made its members ineligible 
to seats in the Legislative Assembly, where their political ex¬ 
perience would have been of the utmost value. The regulation 
was well meant — to prove unselfishness — but it was ex¬ 
tremely unfortunate. The seven hundred and forty-five mem¬ 
bers of the Legislative Assembly were all without experience 
in politics. They were mostly young provincial lawyers and 

283 


The 

Legislative 

Assembly 


284 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Democratic 

gains 


Girondists 

and 

Jacobins 


Foreign 

perils 


journalists; and there was not among them all one great 
proprietor or practical administrator. 

Parties had shifted toward democracy. There was no party 
in the new Assembly corresponding to the old Right and Right- 
Center of the Constituent Assembly. The new Right corre¬ 
sponded to the old Left-Center. Its members were known as 
Constitutionalists, because they wished to preserve the con¬ 
stitution as it was. Outside the House this party was repre¬ 
sented by Lafayette, who, since the death of Mirabeau, was the 
most influential man in France. In the Assembly the party 
counted about one hundred regular adherents, but, for a time, 
the four hundred members of the Center, or “The Plain,” voted 
with it on most questions. The Plain, however, was gradually 
won over to the more radical views of the Left. 

This Left consisted of about two hundred and forty dele¬ 
gates, many of them connected with the Jacobin clubs. The 
gi eater part were to become known as Girondists, from the 
Gironde, the name of a “Department” (p. 280) from which 
the leaders came. They wished a republic, but they were un¬ 
willing to use force to get one. They feared and hated the 
Paris mob, and they wished to intrust power to the provinces 
rather than to the capital. The leaders were hot-headed, elo¬ 
quent young men, who spoke fine sentiments, but who were not 
fit for decisive action in a crisis. 

The members of the Extreme-Left, known from their elevated 
seats as the Mountain, were the quintessence of Jacobinism. 
This party wished a democratic government by whatever means 
might offer, and it contained the men of action in the Assembly. 

The nev inexperienced Assembly, with its tremendous prob¬ 
lems at home to solve, was at once threatened also by foreign 
perils. The emigrant nobles, breathing threats of invasion 
and vengeance, were gathering in arms on the Rhine, under 
protection of German princes. They were drilling mercenary 
troops, and they had secret sympathizers within France. In 
the winter a treacherous plot to betray to them the great fortress 


THE DESPOTS INTERVENE 


285 


of Strassburg all but succeeded. The danger was real. The 
Assembly sternly and properly condemned to death all Emi¬ 
grants who should not return to France before a certain date; 
but the king vetoed the decree. 

And back of the Emigrants loomed the danger of foreign 
intervention. The attempted flight of Louis in June had shown 
Europe that he was really a prisoner. His brother-in-law, 
the Emperor Leopold, then sent to the sovereigns of Europe a 
circular note, calling for common action against the Revolution, 
inasmuch as the cause of Louis was u the cause of kings”; and 
a few days later, Leopold and the King of Prussia joined in 
asserting their intention to arm, in order to aid their “brother.” 

War was almost inevitable. The Revolution stood for a 
new social order. It and the old order could not live together. 
Its success was a standing invitation to revolution in neighbor¬ 
ing lands. If the cause of Louis was “the cause of kings,” so 
was the cause of the Revolution “ the cause of peoples. ” The 
kings felt that they must crush it before it spread. 

The Legislative Assembly welcomed the prospect of war. 
It demanded of Leopold that he disperse the armies of the 
Emigrants and that he apologize for his statements. Leopold 
replied with a counter-demand for a change in the French gov¬ 
ernment such as to secure Europe against the spread of revo¬ 
lution. Then in April, 1792, France declared war. 

The insolent attempts of German princes to dictate the 
policy of the French people rightly aroused a tempest of scorn 
and wrath; but the light-heartedness with which the Legis¬ 
lative Assembly rushed into a war for which France was so 
ill prepared is at first a matter of wonder. The explanation, 
however, is not hard to find. 

The Constitutionalists expected war to strengthen the execu¬ 
tive (as it would have done if Louis had gone honestly with 
the nation), and they hoped also that it would increase their 
own power, since Lafayette was in command of the army. 

On the other hand, the Girondists suspected Louis of being 
in secret league with Austria (suspicions only too well founded), 


The 

Revolution 

and 

European 

kings 


The 

Assembly 

accepts 

war 


286 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Opposition 
by “ the 
Mountain ” 


Marat 


Robes¬ 

pierre 


Danton 


and they knew that France was filled with spies and plotters 
in the interests of the Emigrants. The nervous strain of such 
a situation was tremendous, and the majority of the Assembly 
preferred open war to this terror of secret treason. Moreover, 
the Girondists hoped vaguely that the disorders of war might 
offer some good excuse to set up a republic. 

The only voices raised against the war were from the Moun¬ 
tain and its sympathizers in the Jacobin club. Constitutionalists 
and Girondists were to find their ruin in the war they reck¬ 
lessly invited; while the three men most active in opposing 
war — Robespierre, Danton, and Marat — were to be called 
by it to virtual dictatorship. 

Marat was a physician of high scientific attainments. He 
was jealous and suspicious, and he seems to have become half- 
crazed under the strain of the Revolution. Early in the days 
of the Constituent Assembly, his paper, “The Friend of the 
People,” began to preach the assassination of all aristocrats. 
But Marat was moved by sincere pity for the oppressed; and 
he opposed war, because, as he said, its suffering always fell 
finally upon the poor. 

Robespieire before the Revolution had been a precise young 
lawyer in a provincial town. He had risen to a judgeship, — 
the highest position he could ever expect to attain; but he had 
resigned his office because he had conscientious scruples against 
imposing a death penalty upon a criminal. He was an enthusi¬ 
astic disciple of Rousseau. He was narrow, dull, envious, 
pedantic; but logical, incorruptible, sincere. “That man is 
dangerous, Mirabeau had said of him; “ he will go far; he 
believes every word he says.” In the last months of the Con¬ 
stituent Assembly, Robespierre had advanced rapidly in popu¬ 
larity and power; and now, although without a seat in the 
Assembly, he was the most influential member of the Jacobin 
Club. He opposed the war, because he feared — what the 
Constitutionalists hoped — a strengthening of the executive. 

Danton was a Parisian lawyer. He had early become prom¬ 
inent in the radical clubs; and next to Mirabeau he was the 


MARAT, ROBESPIERRE, DANTON 


287 


strongest man of the early years of the Revolution. He was 
well named “the Mirabeau of the Market Place” He was a 
large, forceful, shaggy nature, and a born leader of men. Above 
all, he was a man of action. Not without a rude eloquence 
himself, he had no patience with the fine speechifying of the 
Girondists, when deeds, not words, were wanted. He opposed 
the war, because he saw how unprepared France was, and how 
unfit her leaders. When it came, he brushed aside these in¬ 
competent leaders and himself organized France. 

For Further Reading. — The best one-volume history of the 
Revolution is that by Shailer Mathews. Next comes Mrs. Gardiner’s, 
somewhat more conservative and decidedly less interesting. There are 
excellent brief treatments in H. Morse Stephens’ Revolutionary Europe, 
1789-1815, and in Rose’s Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era. The 
best of the larger works in English is H. Morse Stephens’ History of the 
French Revolution. Carlyle’s French Revolution remains the most 
powerful and vivid presentation of the forces and of many of the 
episodes of the Revolution, but it can be used to best advantage after 
some preliminary study upon the age, and it is sometimes inaccurate. 
Among the biographies, the following are especially good: Belloc’s 
Danton, Belloc’s Robespierre, Willert’s Mirabeau, Blind’s Madam Roland, 
and Morley’s “ Robespierre” (in Miscellanies, I). For fiction, Dickens’ 
Tale of Two Cities and Victor Hugo’s Ninety-Three are notable. (The 
last half dozen titles pertain especially to the period treated in the next 
chapter.) Anderson’s Constitutions and Documents and the Pennsyl¬ 
vania Reprints, I, No. 5, contain illustrative source material. * 


CHAPTER XV 


The king’s 
vetoes 


And the 
riot of 
June 20 


THE REVOLUTION IN WAR 

FALL OF THE MONARCHY: APRIL TO SEPTEMBER, 1792 

At the declaration of war, the French levies at once invaded 
Belgium (then an Austrian province, p. 233), but were rolled 
back in defeat. The German powers, however, were busy 
robbing Poland (p. 249), and a few weeks more for preparation 
were given France before the storm broke. During these weeks, 
the Assembly decreed the banishment of all non-juring priests 
(those who refused to take the oath to the constitution), many 
of whom were spies; and it provided for a camp of twenty 
thousand chosen patriots to guard the capital. Louis vetoed 
both Acts , and immediately afterward he dismissed his Liberal 
ministers (June 13, 1792). 

Despite the veto, a small camp was formed, under the 
pretense of celebrating the festival of the destruction of the 
Bastille. Among the forces so collected were six hundred 
Marseillaise, sent in response to the call of the deputy of 
Marseilles for “ six hundred men who know how to die.” 
These men entered Paris, singing a new battle hymn, 
which was afterward chanted on many a Revolutionary 
battle field and which was to become famous as The 
Marseillaise. 

The populace was convinced, and rightly, that the king was 
using his power treasonably, to prevent effective opposition 
to the enemies of Prance; and on June 10 there occurred an 
armed rising like those of July and October, 1789. An im¬ 
mense throng presented to the Assembly a monster petition 
against the king s policy, and then broke into the Tuileries, 


THE KING’S TREASONABLE VETOES 


289 


the palace of the royal family, to compel the king to withdraw 
his vetoes. For hours a dense mob surged through the apart¬ 
ments. Louis was crowded into a window, and stood there 
patiently, not without courageous dignity. A red 1 cap, sign of 
the Revolution, was handed him, and he put it upon his head; 
but to all demands for a recall of his vetoes he made firm re¬ 
fusal. By nightfall the building was cleared. Little harm 
had been done, except to furniture; and indeed the mob had 
shown throughout a surprising good nature. 

There followed an outburst of loyalty from the Moderates. 
Lafayette, in command on the frontier, left his troops and 
hastened to Paris, to demand the punishment of the leaders 
of the mob and the closing of the Jacobin Club. The middle 
class was ready to rally about him; and, if the king had been 
willing to join himself to the Constitutionalists, Lafayette might 
have saved the government. But the royal family secretly 
preferred to trust to the advancing Austrians; and Lafayette 
was rebuffed and scorned. He returned to his army, and the 
management of affairs at Paris passed rapidly to the Jacobins. 

France was girdled with foes. The Empire, Prussia, and 
Savoy 2 were in arms. Naples and Spain were soon to join. 
Sweden and Russia both offered to do so, if they were needed. 
In July a Prussian army, commanded by old officers of Fred¬ 
erick the Great, crossed the frontier; and two Austrian armies, 
one from the Netherlands and one from the upper Rhine, con¬ 
verged upon the same line of invasion. The French levies 
were outnumbered three to one. 

Worse still, the army was utterly demoralized by the resig¬ 
nation of many officers in the face of the enemy, and by a justifiable 
suspicion that many of those remaining sympathized with the 
invaders. Within France, too, were royalist risings and plots 
for risings, and the king was in secret alliance with the enemy. 

1 This color had already supplanted the tricolor as the emblem of the 
•vorking-class revolution. 

2 This state of North Italy included the island of Sardinia, and is often 
referred to by that name. 


Lafayette 
and the 
court 


France 
girdled 
with foes 


290 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The queen — whom the Paris mob now began to hate, as “ the 
Austrian Woman” had even communicated the French 
plan of campaign to the Austrian invaders. 

Prodama k S Brunswick > the Prussian commander, counted upon a holiday 

tion: march to Paris. July 25 he issued to the French people a 

July 25 famous proclamation declaring ( 1 ) that the allies entered France 

to restore Louis to his place, (2) that all men taken with arms in 
their hands should he hanged, and (3) that, if Louis were injured, 
he would “inflict a memorable vengeance” by delivering up 
Paris to military execution . 1 

This insolent bluster, with its threat of Prussian “ fright¬ 
fulness, was fatal to the king. France rose in rage, to hurl 
back the boastful invader. But before the new troops marched 
to the front, they insisted upon guarding against enemies in the 
rear. The Jacobins had decided that Louis should not be left 
free to paralyze action again, at some critical moment, by his 
veto. They demanded his deposition. The Girondists were 

not ready for such extreme action; but the Jacobins carried 
their point by insurrection. 

August I0: Led by Danton, they forcibly displaced the middle-class 

deposed municipal council of Paris with a new government; and this 
“Commune of Paris” prepared an attack upon the Tuileries 
for August 10. If Louis had possessed ability or decision his 
Guards might have repulsed the mob; but! after confusing 
them with contradictory orders, the king and his family fled 
to the Assembly, leaving the faithful Swiss regiment to be 
massacred. Bloody from this slaughter, the rebels forced 
their way into the hall of the Assembly to demand the king’s 
instant deposition. Two thirds of the deputies had fled, and 
the rump” of Girondists and Jacobins decreed the deposition 
and imprisonment of Louis, and the immediate election, by 
manhood suffrage, of a Convention to frame a new government. 
Lafayette tried to lead his troops against Paris to restore 
the king. He found his army unwilling to follow him, — ready 
instead, to arrest him, - and so he fled to the Austrians-by 
1 Anderson, No. 23, gives the Proclamation. 


THE SEPTEMBER MASSACRES 


291 


whom he was cast into prison, to remain there until freed by 
Napoleon’s victories. The French nation at large had not 
desired the new revolution, but accepted it as inevitable. The 
nation was more concerned with repulsing foreign foes than 
with balancing nice questions as to praise or blame in Paris. 

The rising of August 10 had been caused by the fear of foreign 
invasion and of treason at home. The same causes three weeks 
later led to one of the most terrible events in history. The 

Commune of Paris,” under Danton’s leadership, had packed 
the prisons with three thousand “suspected” aristocrats, to 
prevent a royalist rising. Then, on August 29 and September 2, 
came the news of the shameful surrender of Longwy and Verdun, 
— two great frontier fortresses guarding the road to Paris. 

Paris was thrown into a panic of fear, and the Paris volun¬ 
teers hesitated to go to the front, lest the numerous prisoners 
recently arrested should break out and avenge themselves upon 
the city, stripped of its defenders. So, while Danton was 
pressing enlistments and hurrying recruits to meet Brunswick, 
the frenzied mob attacked the prisons, organized rude lynch 
courts, and on September 2, 3, and 4 massacred over a thou¬ 
sand of the prisoners with only the shadow of a trial. 1 These 
events are known as the “September massacres .” 

Whether the Jacobin leaders had a secret hand in starting 
the atrocious executions at the prisons will probably never be 
known. Certainly they did not try to stop them; but neither 
did the Assembly, nor the Gironde leaders, nor any other body 
of persons in Paris. Says Carlyle: “Very desirable indeed 
that Paris had interfered, yet not unnatural that it stood look¬ 
ing on in stupor. Paris is in death-panic . . . gibbets at its 
door. Whosoever in Paris hath heart to front death finds it 
more pressing to do so fighting the Prussians than fighting the 
slayers of aristocrats.” 

The Jacobins, however, did openly accept the massacres, 
when committed, as a useful means of terrifying the royalist 

1 The fairest account in English of these massacres is that by Stephens, 
II, 141-150. 


Surrender 
of Verdun 


And the 

September 

Massacres 


292 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Excused 
by the 
Jacobins 


France 
“ at war 
with 
kings ” 


/ 


plotters. When the Assembly talked of punishment, Danton 
excused the deed, and urged action against the enemies of 
France instead. “ It was necessary to make our enemies afraid,” 
he cried. . . Blast my memory, but let France be free.” 
The frightfulness” which the Prussians meant to use against 
all Frenchmen fighting for freedom, the French Jacobins did 
use to crush treason at home. 

Freed from internal peril, France turned upon her foes splen¬ 
didly. Danton became the leading member of the executive 
committee of the Assembly, and at once he infused new vigor 
into the government. “We must dare,” his great voice rang 
out to the hesitating Assembly, “ and dare again, and ever dare, 
— and France is saved!” In this spirit he toiled, night and 
day, to raise and arm and drill recruits. France responded 
with the finest outburst of patriotic enthusiasm the world had 
ever seen in a great civilized state. September 20 the advanc¬ 
ing Prussians were checked at Valmy; and November 9 the 
victory of Jemmapes, the first real pitched battle of the war, 
opened the Austrian Netherlands to French conquest. Another 
French army had already entered Germany, and a third had 
occupied Nice and Savoy. 

These successes of raw French volunteers over the veterans 
of Europe called forth an orgy of democratic enthusiasm. 

T e new National Convention met September 21 (1792), and 
became at once, in Danton’s phrase, “a general committee of 
insurrection for all nations.” It ordered a manifesto in all 
languages, offering the alliance of the French nation to ah 
peoples who wished to recover their liberties; and French 
generals, entering a foreign country, were ordered “to abolish 
serfdom, nobility, and all monopolies and privileges, and to aid 
m setting up a new government upon principles of popular sover¬ 
eignty.”' One fiery orator flamed out, — “ Despots march 

against us with fire and sword. We will bear against them 
Liberty! ” 

Starving and ragged, but welcomed by the invaded peoples , the 
' decrees are given by Anderson, No. 28, 


PEOPLES AGAINST KINGS 


293 


» 

French armies sowed over Europe the seed of civil and political 
liberty. The Revolution was no longer merely French. It took 
on the intense zeal of a proselyting religion, and its principles 
were spread by fire and sword. 

When the new Convention met, the Constitutionalist party 
had disappeared. 1 The Girondist leaders (the Left of the pre¬ 
ceding assembly) now sat upon the Right and seemed to have the 
support of the whole Convention, except for a small party of 
the Mountain, where sat Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, with 
the rest of the deputies of Paris and the organizers of the Revo¬ 
lution of August 10. 

On its first afternoon the Convention declared monarchy 
abolished, and enthusiastically established “The French Re¬ 
public, One and Indivisible.” 2 

The radicals were bent also upon punishing Louis. They 
were satisfied of his treason, and they wished to make recon¬ 
ciliation with the old order of things impossible. Said Danton: 
“ The allied kings march against us. Let us hurl at their feet, 
as the gage of battle, the head of a king.” The Girondists 
wished to save Louis’ life, but their majority was intimidated 
by the galleries; and “Louis Capet” was condemned to death 
for treason to the nation,” and duly executed. This was the 
bloody answer of the Republicans to the silly Divine-Right 
doctrine of the European sovereigns that peoples were the 
property of their kings. 

Early in 1/93 the Convention proposed a new written con¬ 
stitution for the Republic. This document was extremely 
democratic. It swept away all the checks of indirect elections 
and property qualifications, and made all citizens “equally 

1 Note the progress of the Revolution: the old Royalists who made the 
Right of the First Assembly had no place in the Second ; while the Constitu¬ 
tionalists, who had made the Left in the First Assembly, and the Right in 
the Second, had vanished from the Third. 

2 The student should keep distinct the three great assemblies: First, the 
Constituent Assembly (or the National Assembly) which made the first con¬ 
stitution ; Second, the Legislative Assembly , which declared war and called 
for the election of its successor by manhood suffrage; and, Third, the Con¬ 
vention, which deposed Louis, declared a Republic, and made war on kings. 


The 

Revolution 
ary propa¬ 
ganda 


The First 

French 

Republic 


Execution 
of the 
king 


Constitution 
of the 
Year I 


294 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Treason 

and 

dissension 


sovereign.” Further, it made all acts of the legislature subject 
to a “referendum.” This Constitution of the Year 1 1 was itself 
submitted to such a referendum, and was adopted by the nation. 

No country had ever had so democratic a constitution. 

Nor had any great nation ever before adopted its government 
by direct vote. Four years earlier, the much less demo¬ 
cratic constitution of the United States was ratified 
indirectly , — by State conventions; and only two of the 
State constitutions had been submitted to the people. 

The constitution, however, never went into operation. The 
Convention suspended it, declaring that France was in danger, 
and that the government must be left free from constitutional 
checks until war was over. This was one of the first demon¬ 
strations in history of the fundamental truth that war is a 
despot’s game, and that democracies can play it successfully 
only by ceasing, for the time, at least, to be democracies. 

France was indeed in danger. The execution of the king 
was one factor in deciding England, Spain, Holland, Naples, 
and Portugal to join the war against France, and it offended 
many Fiench patriots. Dumouriez, an able but unscrupulous 
general, who had succeeded Lafayette as the chief military 
leader, tried to play traitor, in the spring of 1793, by surrender¬ 
ing Belgian fortresses to the Austrians and by leading his army 
to Paris to restore the monarchy. His troops refused to follow 
him, and he fled to the enemy; but Belgium was lost for a 
time, and once more the frontier was open to attack. 

1 The Convention adopted a new Calendar. September 22, the first day 
of the Republic, was made “ the first day of the Year One of a new era.” There 
followed twelve months of thirty days each, and then five great holidays 
dedicated to liberty. Each month was divided into three decades , and each 
tenth day was a holiday (in place of the Seventh day of rest and worship). 
The months took their names from the seasons, — Vintage month Fog 
month, Frost month, for autumn; Snow, Rain, Wind months, for winter; 
Budding, Flower, and Meadow months, for spring and early summer; and 
Harvest, Heat, and Fruit months, to close the year. Holidays were no 
longer dedicated to saints, but to the plow, the cow, the grape, and so on. 

his is an interesting illustration of the way in which the Convention cut 
loose from the past. 


JACOBINS CRUSH GIRONDISTS 


295 


Ever since the Convention met, dissension had threatened 
between the Gironde majority and the Mountain. The Moun¬ 
tain was supported by the masses of Paris. Outside the capital, 
the Girondists were much the stronger. They wished to re¬ 
move the Convention from Paris; and the Mountain accused 
them of desiring to break up the “Indivisible Republic” into 
a federation of provinces. 

The Girondists took the moment of foreign danger, in the 
spring of 1793, to press the quarrel to a head. They accused 
Marat of stirring up the September massacres, and persuaded 
the Convention to bring him to trial. Then they were mad 
enough to charge Danton with royalist conspiracy. 

Danton, who was straining his mighty strength to send 
reinforcements to the armies of France, pleaded at first for peace 
and union, but, when this proved vain, he turned savagely 
upon his assailants. “ You were right,” he cried to his friends 
on the Mountain, who had pressed before for action against 
the Girondists, “ and I was wrong. There is no peace possible 
with these men. Let it be war, then. They will not save the 
Republic with us. It shall be saved without them, saved in 
spite of them.” 

While the Girondists debated, the Mountain acted. It was 
weak in the Convention, but it was supreme in the galleries 
and in the streets and above all in the Commune of Paris. 
The Commune, which had carried the Revolution of August 10 
against the Legislative iVssembly, now marched its forces 
against the Convention, June 2, 1793, and held it prisoner 
until it passed a decree imprisoning thirty of the leading Giron¬ 
dists. Others of that party fled, and the Jacobin Mountain 
was left in power. 

The fate of the Girondists has aroused much sympathy; 
but the Jacobin victory was the only means to save the 
Revolution with its priceless gain for humanity. Says 
John Morley (Essay on Robespierre), “The deliverance 
of a people beset by strong and implacable foes could not 


The Giron¬ 
dists give 
way to the 
Jacobins 


Gironde 
rebellion 
and foreign 
invasion 


And the 
Committee 
of Public 
Safety 


296 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 

wait on mere good manners and fastidious sentiments, 
when those comely things were in company with the most 
stupendous want of foresight ever shown by a political 
party.” 

JUNE, 1793, TO MARCH, 1794; JACOBIN RULE 

Fugitive Girondists aroused the provinces against the Jacobin 
capital. They gathered armies at Marseilles, Bordeaux, Caen, 
and Lyons. Lyons, the second city in France, even raised the 
white flag of the monarchy, and invited in the Austrians, — 
whereupon the Girondists in the city threw down their arms, 
gallantly choosing death rather than alliance with the enemies 
of France. Elsewhere, too, royalist revolt reared its head. 
In the remote province of Vendee (in ancient Brittany), the 
simple, half-savage peasants were still slavishly devoted to 
king, priest, and hereditary lord, and they rose now in wild 
rebellion against the Republic. The great port of Toulon 
even admitted an English fleet and army. The Convention, 
with Paris and a score of the central Departments, faced the 
other three fourths of France as well as the rest of Europe. 

So fai, the Revolutionists had been afraid of a real executive, 
as a danger to freedom; but these new perils forced the Con¬ 
vention to intrust power to a great “Committee of Public 
Safety.” Said one member, the Convention “established the 
despotism of liberty, in order to crush the despotism of tyrants.” 
The Committee consisted of twelve members, — all from the 
Mountain. The Convention made all other national com¬ 
mittees and officers the servants of this great Committee, and 
ordered even the municipal officials to give it implicit obedience. 

The Committee were not trained administrators, but they 
were men of practical business sagacity and of tremendous 
energy, — such men as a revolution must finally toss to the 
top. In the war office, Carnot “organized victory”; beside 
him, in the treasury, labored Cambon , with his stern motto, 
“War to the manorhouse, peace to the hut”; while a group 
of such men as Robespierre and St. Just sought to direct the 


NINETY-THREE 


297 

Revolution so as to refashion France according to new ideals 
ot democracy and of welfare for the common man. 1 

Nearly a hundred “Deputies on Mission” * were sent out 
to all parts of France to enforce obedience to the Committee. 
They reported every ten days to the Committee; but, subject 
to its approval, they exercised despotic power, — replacing 
civil authorities at will, seizing money or supplies for the na¬ 
tional use, imprisoning and condemning to death by their own 
courts. Moreover, to secure energy in the management of 
the war, and to prevent further treachery like that of Lafayette 
and Dumouriez, two Deputies on Mission accompanied each of 
the fourteen armies of the Republic, with authority to arrest a 
general at the head of his troops. 

Never has a despotism been more efficient than that of the 
great Committee and its agents. In October Lyons was 
captured. On the proposal of the Committee the Convention 
ordered that the rebel city should be razed to the ground. Toulon 
was taken, despite English aid, and punished sternly. Other 
centers of revolt, paralyzed with fear, yielded. Order and 
union were restored, and Carnot could send another million of 
men to join the armies of France. Before the year closed, 
French soil was free from danger of invasion, and French armies 

had taken the offensive on all the frontiers. Peril from without 
was past. 

“ AH France and whatsoever it contains of men and resources is put 
under requisition,” said the Committee, in a stirring proclamation to the 
nation (August 23, 1793).* "The Republic is one vast besieged city. 

. . . The young men shall go to battle; it is their task to conquer; 
the married men shall forge arms, transport baggage and artillery, pro¬ 
vide subsistence; the women shall work at soldiers’ clothes, make 
tents, serve in the hospitals; children shall scrape old linen into sur¬ 
geon’s lint; the old men shall have themselves carried into public places 

Stephens French Revolution, II, 285 (and also his Revolutionary Europe 
133) has an admirable account of the men of the Committee. A dramatic 
account of their meetings is given by John Morley in his Robespierre. 

2 They were “deputies” in the Convention, sent out by the great Com¬ 
mittee on special “missions.” 

3 The decree is given in full by Anderson. 


Order, 
union, 
and victory 


298 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The “ 
Terror 


and there, by their words, excite the courage of the young and preach 
hatred to kings and unity for the Republic.” 

“In this humor, then, since no other will serve,” adds Carlyle, “will 
France rush against its enemies; headlong, reckoning no cost, heeding 
no law but the supreme law, Salvation of the People. The weapons are 
all the iron there is in France; the strength is that of all the men and 
women there are in France. . . . From all hamlets towards their 
departmental town, from all departmental towns toward the appointed 
camp, the Sons of Freedom shall march. Their banner is to bear 'The 
French People risen against Tyrants.’ . . . 

“These soldiers have shoes of wood and pasteboard, or go booted in 
hay-ropes, in dead of winter. . . . What then? 'With steel and 
bread,’ says the Convention Representative, 'one may get to China.’ 
The generals go fast to the guillotine, justly or unjustly. . . . Ill- 
success is death; in victory alone is life. ... All Girondism, Halfness, 
Compromise, is swept away. . . . Forward, ye soldiers of the Republic' 
captain and man! Dash with your Gallic impetuosity on Austria' 
England, Prussia, Spain, Sardinia, Pitt, Coburg, York, and the Devil 
and the World! 

“See accordingly on all frontiers, how the 'Sons of Night’ astonished, 
after short triumph, do recoil; the Sons of the Republic flying after 
them, with temper of cat-o-mountain or demon incarnate, which no Son 
of Night can withstand. . . . Spain which came bursting through the 
Pyrenees, rustling with Bourbon banners, and went conquering here and 
there for a season, falters at such welcome, draws itself in again, — too 
happy now were the Pyrenees impassable. Dugomier invades Spain by 
the eastern Pyrenees. General Mueller shall invade it by the western. 
‘Shall; that is the word. Committee of Public Safety has said it; Rep¬ 
resentative Cavaignac, on mission there, must see it done. 'Impossible,’ 
cries Mueller; ' Infallible,’ answers Cavaignac. ' The Committee is deaf 
on that side of its head, answers Cavaignac. ' How many want’st thou 
of-men, of horses, of cannon? Thou shalt have them. Conquerors 
conquered, or hanged, Forward we must.’ Which things also, even as the 
Representative spake them, were done.” 

Long The Committee had not hesitated to use the most terrible 
means to secure union and obedience. Early in September of 
1793 it adopted “Terror” as a deliberate policy. This “Long 
Terror” was a very different thing from the “Short Terror” 
of the mob, a year before. The Paris prisons were crowded 
again with Suspects , and each day the Revolutionary tri¬ 
bunal, after farcical trials, sent batches of them to the guillotine. 


THE “TERROR” 


299 


Among the victims were the queen, many aristocrats, and also 
many Constitutionalists and Girondists — heroes of 1791 and 
1792. In some of the revolted districts, too, submission was 
followed by horrible executions; and at Nantes the cruelty of 
Carrier, the Deputy on Mission, half-crazed with blood, in¬ 
flicted upon the Revolution an indelible stain. 


Over much of France, however, the Terror was only a name. 
The rule of most of the great Deputies on Mission was blood¬ 
less and was ardently supported by the popular will. In all, 
some fifteen thousand executions took place during the year of 
the Terror, — nearly three thousand of them in Paris. 


This terrible policy proved effectual. After two. months 
of the Terror, Paris was tranquil and resumed its usual life. 
There were no more riots and almost no crime, even of the 
ordinary kind. France was again a mighty nation, united and 
orderly at home and victorious abroad. Says Carlyle, — 


“Overhead of all of this, there is the customary brewing and baking. 
Labor hammers and grinds. Frilled promenaders saunter under the 
trees, white-muslin promenadresses, with green parasols, leaning on 
your arm. ... In this Paris, are twenty-three theaters nightly [and] 
sixty places of dancing.” 


The Terror was a suie weapon, ready to hand in a moment 
of death peril to liberty. The Convention did not shrink from 
using it. That much may be said in explanation. Still the 
“Reign of Terror” remains a terrible blot on human history. 

At the same time it does not stand all by itself. John Mor- 
ley, a cultivated English scholar, calls it “almost as horrible” 
as the scenes the English enacted six years later in Ireland 
(p. 462) without such mighty reason. And it was far less ter¬ 
rible than the needless vengeance inflicted by the conservative 
middle-class government of Paris in 1871 upon twenty thou¬ 
sand victims from the working class (p. 489), — over which 
the world shudders very little. 

A study of the Revolution must notice this bloodshed, but 
ought not to put much emphasis on it. It is not in any way 
the significant thing about the Revolution. Indeed, it was not 


300 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Violence 
only an 
incident 
due to 

foreign peril 


Positive 

Reform 


the product of the Revolution itself, but of foreign war. The 
significant thing about the Revolution is the national awaken¬ 
ing which swept away an absurd, tyrannical society, founded 
on ancient violence and warped by time, to replace it with a 
simpler society based on equal rights. Literature has been 
filled with hysterics about the violence. It is well for us to 
shudder — but there is no danger that we shall not, for those 
who suffered were the few who “knew how to shriek,” and so 
arouse sympathy for their woe. The danger is that we forget 
the relief to the dumb multitudes who had endured worse tortures 
for centuries, but whose inarticulate moanings hardly attract at¬ 
tention in history. As Carlyle justly says, not for a thousand 
years had any equal period in France seen so little suffering 
as just those months of revolution and “terror.” 

If the Convention destroyed much, it built up vastly more. 
It made the Revolution a great and fruitful reform. The grim, 
silent, tense-browed men of the Committee worked eighteen 
hours out of every twenty-four. Daily, they carried their 
lives in their hands; and so they worked swiftly, disregard¬ 
ing some niceties of detail, and cutting knots that did not 
easily loosen. While Carnot, “Organizer of Victory,” was 
creating the splendid army that saved liberty from despots, 
his associates were laying the foundations for a new and better 
society. They were “organizing” civilization. 

Mainly on their proposals, the Convention made satisfactory 
provision for the public debt that had crushed the old mon¬ 
archy. It adopted the beginning of a simple and just code of 
laws. It abolished imprisonment for debt and gave property 
rights to women, forty years ahead of England or America. 
It accepted the metric system of weights and measures, 
abolished slavery in French colonies, instituted the first Normal 
School, the Polytechnic School of France, the Conservatory of 
France, the famous Institute of France, and the National 
Library, and planned also a comprehensive system of public 
instruction, the improvement of the hospitals and of the prisons, 
and the reform of youthful criminals. Said Danton, “Next 


FALL OF THE JACOBINS 


301 


to bread, education is the first need of the people.” As Shailer 
Mathews says, “No government ever worked harder for the 
good of the masses” ■ and says H. Morse Stephens: 

“It is probable that as the centuries pass, the political strife 

I ' may be for 8° tten > w hile the projects of Cambacerts and 
Merlin toward codification, the plans of Condorcet and Lakanal 
tor a system of national education, and Argobast’s report on 
the new weights and measures, will be regarded as making great 
and important steps in the progress of the race. . . . The 
Convention laid the foundations upon which Napoleon after¬ 
ward built. In educational as in legal reform, the most im- 
portant work was done during the Reign of Terror.” 

c Further Reading - — One of the histories named at the close 
of the last chapter ought to be used for library work as far as the close 
oi this chapter. Carlyle also should surely be read. 

Exekcise. — Instructive parallels and contrasts between the course 
of the French Revolution, as to violence and class divisions, with the 
course of the Russian Revolution of 1917-1918. 

RUIN OF THE JACOBINS, MARCH, 1794, TO MARCH, 1795 

The Jacobins had established their supremacy over all The 
other parties by the “Terror”; but after some months they Jacobins 
themselves broke up into factions. The Committee of Public into* UP 
Safety continued to uphold the inner circle of its members (led factions 
by Robespierre) who had charge of carrying on the Terror; but, 
outside the Committee, that policy was attacked violently 
from both sides. 

1. The Paris Commune, led now by the coarse Hebert , 
clamored for more blood. This group wished to level rich and 
poor by wholesale confiscation, and to execute all who might 
be feared as opponents of such measures. In Paris they carried 
another part of their program to success for a time. They 
closed all Christian worship, and substituted for the worship of 
God a “worship of Reason,” with ribald blasphemy. 

This atheism aroused Robespierre to denounce the Hebert- 
ists in the Convention as dangerous to the Revolution. Twice 


302 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


The rule of 
Robespierre 


the Commune had reversed the control of a National Assembly 
by insurrection. Now it tried a third time, but failed; and 
Robespierre sent Hebert and his leading friends to the guillotine 
(March, 1794). 

2. On the other hand, Danton was weary of bloodshed. 
He was the only man in France whose popularity and influence 
rivaled that of Robespierre. For months he had been urging 
in the Convention that Terror was no longer needed, now 
that France was victorious without and tranquil within. And 
Danton s friend, Camille Desmoulins (p. 272), started a witty 
newspaper to criticize the policy of the great Committee, sug¬ 
gesting in its place a “ Committee of Mercy,” to bind up the 
wounds of France. In April Robespierre accused both men of 
“conspiracy,” and sent them to the guillotine. 1 

Danton’s danger had been plain, and his friends had urged 
him to strike first. Better to be guillotined than to do more 
guillotining,” he answered. As he mounted the scaffold, he 
faltered a moment at the thought of his wife, whom he loved 
tenderly. But rallying, he said grimly to the executioner, — 
“Show my head to the people. It is worth while. They do 
not see the like every day.” 

Robespierre, for the next three months, seemed sole master 2 
of France. He reopened the churches, and offset Hebert’s 
festival of Reason by making the Convention solemnly cele¬ 
brate a “Festival to the Supreme Being.” 3 He aimed to 
create a new France, with simple and austere virtues, like 
those Rousseau pictured in his ideal “state of nature.” This 
he believed could be done by education. He secured from 
the Convention a decree for a system of universal public educa- 

1 Just before the Revolution began, a humane Dr. Guillotin had invented 
a device (consisting of a heavy knife sliding down swiftly between two upright 
supports) to behead criminals. This “guillotine” was much more merciful 
and certain in its operation than the older custom of beheading by an axe 
in the hands of a man. 

2 Marat had been murdered by Charlotte Corday. The story may be 
presented as a special report. 

3 Robespierre was not a Christian; he was a deist, like Voltaire. 


FALL OF THE JACOBINS 


303 


tion. The opening sentences of the decree read: “ The rise 
of an oppressed nation to democracy is like the effort by which 
nature rose out of nothingness to existence. We must entirely 
refashion a people whom we wish to make free, — destroy its 
prejudices, alter its habits, limit its necessities, root up its vices, 
purify its desires. The state must therefore lay hold on every 
human being at his birth and direct his education with powerful 
hand. The most enthusiastic follower of Robespierre was St. 

Just; and the fragments of St. Just’s Institutes express the 
ardent hopes of these Terrorists. 

Boys of seven were to be handed over to the “school of the nation ” to 
be trained “to endure hardship and to speak little/’ Neither servants 
nor gold or silver vessels were to be permitted. The nation was to 
possess the happiness of virtue, of moderation, of comfort — the 
happiness that springs from the enjoyment of the necessary without the 
superfluous. The luxury of a cabin and of a field fertilized by your own 
hands, a cart, a thatched roof, — such is happiness.” St. Just declarer! 
that he would blow his brains out if he did not believe it possible to 
remodel the French people along such lines. 

During his three-months’ rule, Robespierre coupled the proc¬ 
lamation o* these fine theories with a terrible increase in the 
policy of the “Terror” — to clear the field. The number of 
executions rose to two hundred a week. The Convention 
trembled for its own safety, and at last it turned savagely on 
Robespierre. On July 2/, when he began to speak, he was 
interrupted by shouts of “ Down with the tyrant! ” Astounded, 
he stammered confusedly; and a delegate cried,— “See, the 
blood of Danton chokes him.” Quickly he was tried and 
executed, with a hundred close adherents. 

The Terror now came to an end, and some extreme laws Fall of 
were repealed. In December, 1794, encouraged by the re- Robes P ierr e 
action against the radicals, the fugitive members of the Right 
once more appeared in the Assembly; and in March, 1795, 
even the survivors of the expelled Girondists were admitted. 

The Jacobins roused the populace of Paris in a desperate 
attempt to undo the reaction; but the middle class had rallied. 


The 

Directory 


Royalist 

rising 

swept 

away 


304 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 

•) 

and the mob was dispersed by troops and by organized bands 
of “gilded youth.” The populace was disarmed, the National 
Guards were reorganized, and there followed over France a 
“White Terror,” wherein the conservative classes executed or 
assassinated many hundreds of the Jacobin party — whereof, 
since this was not a “Red” Terror, history makes little mention. 

1795-1799: THE DIRECTORY 

A new “Constitution of the Year III ” (1795) replaced the 
constitution of the Year I and confirmed middle-class rule in 
the Republic. The government established by this document 
is called “The Directory.” This was the name of the executive . 
which consisted of a committee of five, chosen by the legislature. 
The legislature consisted of two Houses. Property qualifica¬ 
tions for voting were restored. 

The constitution was submitted to a popular vote; but, before 
the vote was taken, at the last moment, the expiring Conven¬ 
tion decreed that two thirds of its members should hold over as 
members of the new Assembly. 1 This arrangement was sub¬ 
mitted to the people, along with the constitution, and was 
practically made a condition to the latter. It was carried 
by a small majority, while the constitution was ratified by an 
overwhelming vote. In Paris the secret Royalists took ad¬ 
vantage of the dissatisfaction among the people at this arrange¬ 
ment to stir up a revolt. They were joined by twenty thou¬ 
sand National Guards. The Directory was in terror. But it 
had four thousand regular troops, and it happened to hit upon 
a brilliant young officer to command them. That officer posted 
cannon about the approaches to the Convention hall, and 
mowed down the attacking columns with “a whiff of grapeshot” 
(October 5, 1795). 

The Directory remained in power four years more; but the 
chief interest for this period centers in the rise of the officer 
who had saved it, and whose name was Napoleon Bonaparte. 

1 Cf. the story of the Rump Parliament, p. 204. 


CHAPTER XVI 


THE RISE OF NAPOLEON 

In 1795, when the government of the Convention was merged 
m the Directory, France had already made great gains of terri¬ 
tory. On the northeast, Belgium had been annexed, with the 
vote of its people. Nice and Savoy, on the southeast, had been 
added, in like manner. The eastern frontier had been moved to 
the Rhine, by the seizure of all the territory of the Empire on 
the west side of the river. Holland had been converted into a 
dependent ally, as the “ Batavian Republic,” with a constitu¬ 
tion molded on that of France. Prussia, Spain, and most of the 
small states had withdrawn from the war. Only England, 
Austria, and Sardinia kept the field. 

The Directory then determined to attack Austria vigorously, 
both in Germany and in her Italian provinces (p. 233). Two 
splendid armies were sent into Germany, and a small, ill-supplied 
force in Italy was put under the command of Bonaparte. The 
wonderful genius of the young general (then twenty-seven years 
old) made the Italian campaign the decisive factor in the war. 
By rapid movements, he separated the Austrian and Sardinian 
forces, beat the latter in five battles in eleven days, and forced 
Sardinia to conclude peace. Turning upon the brave but delib¬ 
erate Austrians, he won battle after battle, and by July he was 
master of Italy. Austria, however, clung stubbornly to her 
Italian provinces; and during the following year, four fresh 
armies, each larger than Napoleon’s, were sent in succession 
from the Rhine to the Po, only to meet destruction. In October, 
1797, Austria agreed to accept Venice from Bonaparte, in ex¬ 
change for Lombardy and Belgium, which she had lost, and war 
on the continent closed with the “Peace of Campo Formio.” 

305 


Expansion 

before 

Bonaparte 


Bonaparte 
in Italy 


306 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 



To the Italians, Bonaparte posed at first as a deliverer, and 
his large promises awoke the peninsula to the hope of a new 
national life. Something was accomplished. Oligarchic Genoa 
became “the Ligurian Republic/’ and the Po valley was made 
into “the Cisalpine Republic.” Bonaparte swept away feudal¬ 
ism and serfdom and the forms of the old Austrian despo¬ 
tism, and introduced civil 
equality and some politi¬ 
cal liberty. At the same 
time, however, with amaz¬ 
ing perfidy, he tricked the 
ancient state of Venice 
into war, seized it with a 
French army, and after¬ 
ward coolly bartered it 
away to Austria. 

Upon even the states' 
friendly to him, Bonaparte 
levied enormous contribu¬ 
tions, to enrich his soldiers 
and officers, to fill the 
coffers of France, and to 
bribe the Directory. His 

Bonaparte at Arcola. The French troops proclamation upon taking 
were breaking at a critical point, when a £ 

the young general forced his way to the comman d of the Army of 

front, caught a falling standard, and by Italy had been significant 
his presence, restored the fortune of the , « o 1 

day. - After the painting by Gros. ot mUch to COme : Sol “ 


diers, you are starving 
and in rags. The government owes you much, but can do 
nothing for you. I will lead you into the most fruitful plains 
of the world. Teeming provinces, flourishing cities, will be in 
your power. There you may reap honor and glory and wealth.” 

Works of art, too, and choice manuscripts Bonaparte ravished 
from Italian libraries and galleries, and sent to Paris, to gratify 
French vanity; and when the Italians rose against this spolia¬ 
tion, he stamped out the revolts with deliberate cruelty. 




NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 


307 


The Italian campaigns first showed Napoleon Bonaparte to 
the world. He was bom in Corsica in 1769. His parents 
were Italians, poor, but of noble descent. In the year of his 
birth, Corsica became a possession of France. The boy passed 
through a French military school, and when the Resolution 
began he was a junior lieutenant of artillery. The war gave him 
opportunity. He had distinguished himself at the capture of 
Toulon (p. 297); and, chancing to be in Paris at the time of the 
rising against the Directory, in 1795, he had been called upon to 
defend the government. In reward he was given, the next year, 
the command of the “Army of Italy.” 

Napoleon was one of the three or four supreme military 
geniuses of history. He was also one of the greatest of 
civil rulers. He had profound insight, a marvelous memory, 
and tireless energy. He was a “terrible worker,” and his 
success was largely due to his wonderful grasp of masses of 
details, so that he could recall the smallest features of 
geography where a campaign was to take place, or could name 
the man best suited for office in any one of a multitude of 
obscure towns. He was not insensible to generous feeling; 
but, like Frederick II of Prussia (p. 249), he was utterly un¬ 
scrupulous and deliberately rejected all claims of morality. 

Moiality, said he, has nothing to do with such a man as I 
am.” Perfidy and cruelty, when they suited his ends, he used 
as calmly as appeals to honor and patriotism. 

His generalship lay largely in unprecedented rapidity of move¬ 
ment, and in massing his troops against some one weak point of 
an enemy. “Our general,” said his soldiers, “wins his victories 
with our legs.” Moreover, the French army was superior to any 
army in Europe. Elsewhere military office came by birth or by 
purchase. In the Revolutionary armies of France, it came by 
merit and genius. All of Napoleon’s great lieutenants had risen 
from the ranks. One of his most dashing generals (Jourdan) 
had been a tailor; another (Murat) a waiter. Napoleon always 
cherished this democratic character of the army. “Every sol¬ 
dier,” said he, “carries a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.” 


Character 

Napoleon 

Bonaparte 


308 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


In early life Bonaparte may have been a sincere Republican ; 
but he hated anarchy and disorder, and, before his campaign 
in Italy was over, he had begun to plan to make himself ruler 
of France. He worked systematically to transform the army’s 
earlier ardor for liberty into a passion for military glory and 
plunder. He became the idol of the soldiery, and then used 
the military power to overthrow the civil authority. 

Before Campo Formio he had said to a friend, “Do you 
suppose I conquer for the lawyers of the Directory? 

Do you think I mean to found a Republic? What an 
idea! . . . The nation wants a head ., a chief illustrious 
foi great exploits; it does not care for theories of govern¬ 
ment. . . . The French want glory. As for liberty, of 
that they have no conception. ... I am everything to 
the army. Let the Directory try to take my command 
from me, and they will see who is master.” 


Bonaparte 
in Egypt 


Escape to 
France 


England alone continued the war against France; and the 
next year (1798) Bonaparte persuaded the Directory to let him 
attack Egypt, as .a step toward attacking England’s power 
in India. He won a series of brilliant battles in Egypt; but 
suddenly his fleet was annihilated by the English under Nelson, 
in the Battle of the Bile, and his gorgeous dreams of Oriental 
empire faded away. 

Then Bonaparte deserted his doomed army, and escaped to 
France, where he saw new opportunities. War on the continent 
had been renewed. In 1798 the Directory had brought about 
a change in the government of Switzerland and had organized 
that country as “ the Helvetic Republic.” They had also driven 
the pope from Rome and dispossessed other Italian rulers, to 
make way for new republican states. The Great Powers of 
Europe were alarmed at these measures. England succeeded 
in drawing Russia and Austria into another coalition; and so 
far, in the new war,, the campaigns had gone against France, 
Bonaparte’s failure in distant Egypt was not comprehended, 
and the French people welcomed him as a savior. 


BONAPARTE OVERTHROWS THE DIRECTORY 309 

The Directory had proven disgracefully corrupt. Each of 
three years in succession — 1797, 1798, 1799 — the elections 
had gone against it; but it had kept itself in power by a series 
of coups d’etat f or arbitrary interferences with the result of the 
voting. Now Bonaparte used a coup d’etat against it. His 
troops purged the legislature of members hostile to his plan ; 
and a Rump, made up of Bonaparte’s adherents, abolished the 
Directory and elected Bonaparte and two others as Consuls , 
intrusting to them the preparation of a new constitution. 

Now, said the peasantry, “we shall have peace, thanks to 
God and to Bonaparte”; and by a vote of some three million 
to fifteen hundred, the French people accepted the constitution 
that virtually made Bonaparte dictator. France was not really 
ready for the freedom that Paris had won for her so unex¬ 
pectedly by revolution. If Bonaparte had not seized power, 
some other military chief surely would soon have done so. 

For Further Reading. — High school students will hardly get time 
to read upon the Directory period, apart from Napoleon’s story. For 
that, see references on pages 325-326. 

1 Literally, a “stroke of state.” This is the name given in France to in¬ 
fractions of the constitution by some part of the government through the use 
Of force. Happily the thing itself has been so unknown to English history 
that the English language has to borrow the French name. The attempt of 
Charles I to seize the five members (p. 200) was something of the sort. The 
coming century was to see many a coup d'etat in France ; and like phenomena 
have been common in other European countries. 


Overthrow 
of the 
Directory: 
Bonaparte. 
First 
Consul 


CHAPTER XVII 


Peace of 

Amiens, 

1802 


Constitution 
of the 
Consulate 


THE CONSULATE, 1799-1804 

Bonaparte s first work as consul was to crush foreign foeSt 
In 1800 he won the great battle of Marengo over the Austrians 
in Italy, and General Moreau crushed another Austrian army 
m Bavaria at Hohenlinden. Austria and Russia then made 
peace with France; and two years later the Peace of Amiens 
(1802) closed the strife between France and England. For a 
brief peiiod, the wmrld w T as free from war. Napoleon appeared 
both a conqueror with dazzling victories and also the restorer 
of the long-desired peace. 

The Consulate was confirmed by the Constitution of the 
Year VIII (1800). The government was to rest on manhood 
suffrage, but that suffrage was to be “ refined by successive filtra- 
tions.” The adult males, some five million in all, were to 
choose one tenth their number; the five hundred thousand 

Communal Notables,” so chosen, were in turn to choose one 
tenth their number; these fifty thousand “ Departmental Nota¬ 
bles” were to choose five thousand '‘National Notables.” 

But all this voting was only to settle eligibility. The execu¬ 
tive was to appoint communal officers at will out of the Com¬ 
munal Notables, departmental officers out of the Departmental 
Notables, and members of the legislature and other chief 
officers out of the National Notables. 

. ^ le was to be broken up into four parts : a Coun¬ 

cil of State to prepare bills; a Tribunate to discuss them, with¬ 
out right to vote; a Legislative Chamber to vote upon them, 
without right to discuss; and a Senate, with power to veto. 

Sieyes, who planned this constitution, had intended to break 
up the executive in like manner into one consul for war, an- 

310 








































THE CONSULATE 


311 


other for peace, and a “Grand Elector” who should appoint 
the consuls and other great officials, but should then have no 
part in the government. Here Napoleon intervened. He was 
willing to accept a system of elections that never elected any¬ 
body, and a legislature that could not legislate; but he changed 
the shadowy “Grand Elector” into a First Consul , with all 
other parts of the constitution subject to his will. 

Bonaparte became First Consul. His colleagues, as he put 
it, were “merely counselors whom I am expected to consult, 
but whose advice I need not accept.” Directly or indirectly,' 
he himself filled all offices, and no law could even be proposed 
without his sanction. 

Local administration was highly centralized, without even Centrali- 
those checks upon the central power that had existed before the . zation 
Revolution (p. 259). For each Department Napoleon appointed mtensified 
a Prefect, and for each subdistrict a Subprefect. Even the forty 
thousand mayors of towns and villages were appointed by the 
First Consul or by his agents, and held office at his will; “ nor 
did there exist anywhere independent of him the authority 
to light or repair the streets of the meanest village in France.” 

This new administration was vigorous and fearless; and 
under Napoleon’s energy and genius, it conferred upon 
France great and rapid benefits. But, m the long run, 
the result was to he unspeakably disastrous. The chance 
for Frenchmen to train themselves at their own gates in 
the duties and responsibilities of freemen, by sharing in 
the local government, was lost; and the willingness to 
depend upon an all-directing central power was fixed even 
more firmly than before in their minds. (Cf. p. 19.) 

Within France Bonaparte used his vast authority to restore Restoration 
order and heal strife. Royalist and Jacobin were welcomed to of order 
public employment and to favor; and a hundred and fifty 
thousand exiles, of the best blood and brain of France, returned 
to reinforce the citizen body. An agreement with the pope 
(“the Concordat”) reconciled the Catholic church to the state. 


312 


NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 


The last 
of the 
benevolent 
despots 

Reforms 


The “ Code 
Napoleon ” 


Material 

prosperity 


All bishops were replaced by new ones appointed by Napoleon 
and consecrated by the pope. The church became Roman 
again, but it was supported and controlled by the state. 

The reform work of the great Convention of ’93 had been 
dropped by the Directory. Some parts of it were now taken 
up again. Public education was organized; corruption and 
extravagance in the government gave way to order and effi¬ 
ciency ; law was simplified and justice was made cheaper and 
easier to secure. 

This last work was the most enduring and beneficent of all. 
The Convention had begun to reform the outgrown absurdities 
of the confused mass of French laws. The First Consul now 
completed the task. A commission of great lawyers, working 
under his direction and inspiration, swiftly reduced the vast 
chaos of old laws to a marvelously compact, simple, symmetrical 
code. 

This body of law included the new principles of equality born 
of the Revolution. It soon became the basis of law for practi¬ 
cally all Europe, except England, Russia, and Turkey. From 
Spain it spread to all Spanish America, and it lies at the founda¬ 
tion of the law of the State of Louisiana. Napoleon himself 
declared, after his overthrow, “Waterloo will wipe out the 
memory of my forty victories; but that which nothing can wipe 
away is my Civil Code. That will live forever.” 1 

The material side of society was not neglected. The de¬ 
preciated paper money (p. 281) was restored to a sound basis, 
and industry of all kinds was encouraged. Paris was made 
the most beautiful city of Europe, and it was given an excellent 
water supply. Parks and public gardens were provided, 
while, here and there, rose triumphal arches and columns. 
Roads, canals, and harbors were built, and old ones were im¬ 
proved. And, chief of all, the economic gain of the peasants 
in the Revolution (p. 282) was preserved. The peasantry were 
landowners, free from their old burdens; and workmen secured 

1 Special reports: the Legion of Honor; Napoleon’s encouragement of 
science. 


THE CODE NAPOLEON 


313 


two or three times the wages they had received ten years before. 
Under such conditions the people displayed new energies, and, 
with the establishment of quiet and order, they quickly built 
up a vast material prosperity. 

In short, Bonaparte destroyed political liberty; but he preserved 
equality before the law, along with the economic gains to the 
working classes from the Revolution. The burden of taxation was 
made to rest with fair justice upon all classes. The peasant paid 
not four fifths his income in taxes, as before the Revolution, but 
about one fifth; and he got much more in return than before. 

In all this reconstruction the controlling mind was that 
of the First Consul. Functionaries worked as they had worked 
for no other master. Bonaparte knew how to set every man 
the right task; and his own matchless activity (he sometimes 
worked twenty hours a day) made it possible for him to over¬ 
see countless designs. His penetrating intelligence seized the 
essential point of every problem, and his indomitable will drove 
through all obstacles to a quick and effective solution. His 
ardor, his ambition for France and for glory, his passion for 
good work, his contempt for difficulties, inspired every official, 
until, as one of them said, “ the gigantic entered into our habit 
of thought.” 

But the benefits that Bonaparte conferred upon France were 
the work of a beneficent despotism, not of a free government. 
He worked as a Joseph II (p. 250) of greater ability might have 
done. Bonaparte was the last and greatest of the benevolent 
despots, and it was soon plain that he meant to seize the outer 
trappings of royalty as well as its power. 


The last 
of the benev¬ 
olent despots 


CHAPTER XVIII 

THE FRENCH EMPIRE, 1804-1814 


“ Emperor 
Napoleon 
the First ” 


Plebiscites 


System 

of 

spies 


In 1802 Bonaparte had himself elected “Consul for Life.” 
He set up a court, with all the forms of monarchy, and began 
to sign papers by his first name only — Napoleon — as kings 
sign. Then, in 1804, he obtained another vote of the nation 
declaring him “Emperor of the French,” and he solemnly 
crowned himself at Paris, with the presence and sanction of the 
pope, as the successor of Charlemagne. 

Napoleon always claimed that he ruled by the “will of the 
French people”; and each assumption of power was given a 
show of ratification by a popular vote, or plebiscite. But the 
plebiscite was merely the nation’s Yes or No to a question 
framed by the master. The result of a No could never be fore¬ 
seen ; and it was not hard so to shape questions that men 
would rather say \ es than risk the indefinite consequences of 
saying No. The nation had no share at any stage in shaping the 
questions upon which it was to vote / and even the vote was con¬ 
trolled largely by skillful coercion. A plebiscite was a thin 
veil for military despotism; but it was at least a standing 
denial of the old doctrine of “divine right.” At the same time, 
it must be acknowledged that the French people tamely sur- 
rendeied to a despotic master who flattered their vanity and 
fed their material prosperity. 

Personal liberty was no longer safe. Napoleon maintained 
a vast network of secret police and spies, and in ten years he sent 
thirty-six hundred men to prison or into exile by his mere order. 
The press vas subjected to stern and searching censorship. 
No booh could be published if it contained opinions offensive to 
the emperor, even in matters only slightly related to politics. 
Thus Madame de Stael was not allowed to say that the drama of 

314 


NAPOLEON I AND HIS WARS 


315 


Iphigenia by the German Goethe was a greater play than the 
work of the French Racine upon the same plot. N ewspapers 
were forbidden to print anything “contrary to the duties of 
subjects.” They were required to omit all news “disadvan¬ 
tageous or disagreeable to France,” and in political matters they 
were allowed to publish only such items as were furnished them 
by the government. Thus the Moniteur, the leading official 
paper, made no mention of the destruction of the French 
fleet by Nelson at Trafalgar (p. 317) in 1805. 

Moreover, they were required to praise the administration. 

Tell them, said Napoleon, “ I shall judge them not only by 
the evil they say, but by the good they do not say.” Even 
the schools were made to preach despotism, and were com¬ 
manded to “take as the basis of their instruction fidelity to 
the Emperor.” Religion , too, was pressed into service. Every 
village priest depended, directly or indirectly, upon Napoleon’s 
will, and was expected to uphold his power. An Imperial 
Catechism was devised, and used in all schools, expressly to 
teach the duty of all good Christians to obey the emperor. 1 

In 1802 Napoleon told his Council of State that he should 
welcome war and that he expected it. Europe, he declared, 
needed a single head, an emperor, to distribute the various 
kingdoms among lieutenants. 2 He felt, too, that victories and 
military glory were needful to prevent the French nation from 
murmuring against his despotism. 

Naturally, other nations felt that there could be no lasting 
peace with Napoleon except on terms of absolute submission. 
Under such conditions as these, war soon broke out afresh. 
England and France came to blows again in 1803, and there 
was to be no more truce between them until Napoleon’s fall. 
During the next eleven years, Napoleon fought also three wars 
with Austria, two with Prussia, two with Russia, a long war 
with Spain, and various minor conflicts. 


Free 

speech 

suppressed 


The “ Na 
poleonic 
Wars ” 


1 Extracts are given in Anderson’s Documents , No. 65. 

2 This is the way in which the German Hohenzollerns have recently been 
planning to secure Euronean “peace.” Cf. p. 612. 


316 


NAPOLEON I 



are 


T.he European wars from 1/92 to 1802 belong to the period 
of the French Revolution proper. Those from 1803 to 1815 
— “Napoleonic wars,” due primarily to the ambition of one 

great military genius. In 
the first series, Austria was 
the chief opponent of the 
Revolution : in the second 
series, England was the 
relentless foe of Napoleon. 

On the breaking out of 
war with England, Napo¬ 
leon prepared a mighty 
flotilla and a magnificent 
army at Boulogne. Eng¬ 
land was threatened with 
overwhelming invasion if 
she should lose command 
of the Channel even for a 
few hours. So sure did 
Napoleon feel of his prey 
that he even prepared a 
medal to be struck in Lon¬ 
don, upon his expected 


The Vendome Column — made from 

Russian and Austrian cannon captured ' * —~~ 

in the Austerlitz campaign. The figures en t r y there, to COmmemo- 

on the spirals represent scenes in that rate his victorv • W Q 11 
campaign, and upon the summit, 142 Victory , but all 

feet high, stood a statue of Napoleon. 

The name Vendome comes from the 
name of the public square. Students 
of ancient history will naturally com¬ 
pare this column with similar Roman 
military monuments. Napoleon, like 

the later Hohenzollerns, was fond of imi- __m 

empi?e. the W ° rks ° f * he Roman world - the w *r. With immediate 


his attempts to get to¬ 
gether a fleet to compete 
with England’s failed. 

In 1805 Austria and 
Russia joined England in 


„ , decision, Napoleon trans- 

ferred his forces from the Channel to the Danube, annihilated 
two great armies, at Ulrn and Austerlitz (October and Decem- 
er), and, entering Vienna as a conqueror, forced Austria to a 
humiliating peace. That country gave up her remaining terri- 









AND ENGLAND 


317 


tory in Italy, and her Illyrian provinces, and surrendered also 
many of her possessions in Germany. 

Prussia had maintained her neutrality for eleven years; but 
now, with his hands free, Napoleon goaded her into war, crushed 
her absolutely at Jena (October, 1806), occupied Berlin, and 
soon afterward dictated a peace that reduced Prussia one half 
in size and bound her to France as a vassal state. 

Less decisive conflicts with Russia were followed by the 
Peace of Tilsit (July, 1807). The Russian and French em¬ 
perors met in a long interview, and Tsar Alexander was so 
impressed by Napoleon’s genius, that, from an enemy, he be¬ 
came a friend and ally. France, it was understood, was to rule 
Western Europe; Russia might aggrandize herself in the 
Eastern half at the expense of Sweden, Turkey, and Asia; and 
the two Powers were to unite in ruining England by shutting 
out her commerce from the continent. 

England had proved as supreme on the seas as Napoleon on 
land. In 1805, at Trafalgar , off the coast of Spain, Nelson 
destroyed the last great fleet that Napoleon collected. Soon 
afterward a secret article in the Treaty of Tilsit agreed that 
Denmark (then a considerable naval power) should be made 
to add her fleet to the French; but the English government 
struck first. It demanded the surrender of the Danish fleet into 
English hands until war should close, and finally it compelled the 
delivery by bombarding Copenhagen. 

After this, Napoleon could not strike at England with his 

armies, and he fell back upon an attempt to ruin her by crushing 

her commerce. All the ports of the continent were to be closed 

to her goods. Napoleon stirred French scientists into desperate 

efforts to invent substitutes for the goods shut out of the conti- 

« 

nent. One valuable result followed. The English cruisers 
prevented the importation into France of West-India cane 
sugar; but it was discovered that sugar could be made from 
the beet, and the raising of the sugar-beet became a leading 
industry of France. 

This Continental System did inflict damage upon England, 


Peace 

of 

Tilsit 


Trafalgar 


Napoleon’ 
“ Conti¬ 
nental 
System ” 


318 


NAPOLEON I 


‘'War of 
1812 ” in 
America 


Napoleon 
and the 
Spanish 
people 


but it carried greater harm to the continent, which simply could 
not do without the manufactures of England, then the work¬ 
shop of Europe. At times, even the French armies had to be 
clothed in smuggled English goods, and they marched into 
Russia in 1812 (p. 324) in English shoes. 

England s retort to the Continental System was an attempt 
to blockade the coast of France and her dependencies to all 
neutral vessels. In these war measures, both France and 
England ignored the rights of neutral states. One result was 
the War of 1812 in America. In this struggle, unhappily, we 
let ourselves be tricked into fighting upon the side of the Euro¬ 
pean despot, against the only champion of freedom, and upon 
the whole, into fighting that power which we had least reason to 
fight. 1 Happily, in that day, America’s part could not be 

decisive, and the contest did not much affect the European 
result. 


On the other hand, Napoleon’s attempts to enforce his Sys¬ 
tem led him from one high-handed measure to another, until 
Portugal and Russia rose against him, and so gave Central 
Europe another chance to win freedom (pp. 324-325). 

Portugal refused to obey Napoleon’s order to confiscate the 
English vessels in her ports. Thereupon Napoleon’s armies 
occupied the kingdom. From this act, Napoleon passed to the 
seizure of Spam, placing his brother Joseph upon the throne. 
But the proud and patriotic Spanish people rose in a “ War for 
Liberation,” and it was soon plain that a new force had ap¬ 
peared. Hitherto, Napoleon had warred against governments, 
and had dictated peace when the rulers were in his power: 
now, first, he had to fight with a people in arms. Brilliant 
victories merely transferred the outbreaks from one quarter 
to another and called for more and more of his energies. Eng¬ 
land seized her opportunity, too, and sent an army under 
Wellesley (afterward Duke of Wellington) to support the 
Peninsular revolt. To the end, this struggle continued to drain 


1 As if in 1914 1918 we had let Germany draw us to her side, as she hoped 
because the English blockade of Germany hurt our commerce. 




THE NEW MAP OF EUROPE 319 

Napoleon’s resources. Long after, at St. Helena, he declared 
that it was really the Spanish war that ruined him. 

In 1809, encouraged by the Spanish rising, Austria once 
more entered the lists, but a defeat at Wagram forced her again 
to submission. Napoleon now married a princess of Austria. 
He was anxious for an heir, and so divorced his former wife, 
Josephine, who had borne him no children, to make way for 
marriage with a grandniece of Marie Antoinette. This union 
of the Revolutionary emperor with the proud Hapsburg house 
marks in some respects the summit of his power. 

At the moment, the Spanish campaigns seemed trivial; 
and after Wagram, Napoleon was supreme in Central Europe. 
This period was marked by sweeping changes in territory. 
The most important may be grouped under four heads. 

The Batavian Republic (p. 305) was converted into the King¬ 
dom of Holland, with Napoleon’s brother Louis for its sovereign. 
Later, when Louis refused to ruin his people by enforcing the 
Continental System rigidly, Napoleon deposed him, and an¬ 
nexed Holland to France, along with the whole north coast of 
Germany as far as Denmark. 

In Italy the new republics and the old petty states were dis¬ 
posed of, one after another. Even the pope was deprived of 
his principality. When these changes were complete, Italy 
lay in three fairly equal divisions. In the south Napoleon’s 
brother, Joseph, ruled as King of Naples; and when Joseph 
was promoted in 1809 to the throne of Spain, he was succeeded 
in Naples by Murat, one of Napoleon’s generals. In the north¬ 
east was the “Kingdom of Italy,” with Napoleon himself as 
king — as Charlemagne and Otto and their successors had been 
“kings of Italy” ! The rest of the peninsula was made a part of 
France, and was organized as a French Department. 

The Illyrian provinces on the eastern coast of the Adriatic 
were annexed directly to France. 

Most important of all were the changes in Germany. To 
comprehend the significance of Napoleon’s work there, one 


Napoleon 

after 

Wagram 


Napoleon’s 
new map 
of Europe 


320 


NAPOLEON I 


Germany 

before 

Napoleon 


must first grasp the bewildering conditions before his inter¬ 
ference. 

Before Napoleon there was no true political Germany. The 
Holy Roman Empire was made up of: 

Two “great states,” Austria and Prussia, each of them half 
Slavonic in blood; 

Some thirty states of the “second rank,” like Bavaria and 
Wurtemberg; 

About two hundred and fifty petty states of the “third order” 
(many of them under bishops or archbishops), ranging in size 
from a small duchy to a large farm, but averaging a few thousand 
inhabitants; 

Some fifteen hundred “knights of the empire,” who in Eng' 
land would have been country squires (pp. 84-85), but who in 
Germany were really independent monarchs, with an average 
territory of three square miles, and some three hundred subjects 
apiece, over whom they held power of life and death; 

About fifty-six “free cities,” all in misrule, governed by 
narrow aristocracies (p. 99). 

Each of the two hundred and fifty states of the “third rank,” 
like the larger ones, was an absolute monarchy, with its own laws, 
its own mimic court and army, its own coinage, and its crowd 
of pedantic officials. The “Sovereign Count” of Leimburg- 
Styrum-Wilhelmsdorf kept a standing army of one colonel, 
nine lower officers, and two privates ! Each of the fifteen hun¬ 
dred “knights” had his own system of tariffs and taxes. 

One more factor must be taken into account in order to get 
an idea of the indescribable confusion. Rarely did one of these 
petty principalities have its territory compact. Many a state of the 
second or third order consisted of several fragments 1 (obtained by 
accidents of marriage or war), sometimes widely scattered , — some 
of them perhaps wholly inside a larger state to which politically 
they had no relation. No map can do justice to the quaint 
confusion of this region, about the size of Texas, thus broken 
1 As indicated by such compound names as the one above. 


AND GERMAN UNITY 


321 


into eighteen hundred governments varying from an empire to 
a small estate, and scattered in fragments within fragments. 1 
It is little wonder that the philosopher Lessing, the greatest 
German between Luther and Goethe, should have said : “Pa¬ 
triotism I do not understand ; at best it seems an amiable weak¬ 
ness which I am glad to be free from.” 

Napoleon had begun his rearrangement of Germany at Campo 
Formio (p. 305). By that treaty (and by subsequent arrange¬ 
ments), princes of the Empire were allowed to recompense them¬ 
selves for the territories they had lost to France by absorbing 
the ecclesiastical states and most of the “free cities.” 

After Austerlitz and Jena, more radical changes followed. 
Austria and Prussia were weakened. The first became an 
inland state. The second was halved and pushed altogether 
beyond the Elbe, while its recent Polish acquisitions were 
turned into the Duchy of Warsaw. Besides so depressing the 
two great states, Napoleon proceeded to form a further check 
upon them by augmenting the states of the second rank. Ba¬ 
varia, Saxony, and Wurtemberg were made kingdoms, with 
territories enlarged at the expense of Austria and of smaller 
neighboring states; while out of old Prussian territory and 
of the electorate of Hanover was formed a new “Kingdom of 
Westphalia,” for Napoleon’s brother Jerome. 

At the same time, the large states were encouraged or com¬ 
pelled to absorb the territories of the knights and of the petty 
principalities within or adjoining their borders. Thus the “po¬ 
litical crazy quilt” of eighteen hundred states was simplified to 
thirty-eight states. This tremendous consolidation, surviving 
the rearrangements after Napoleon’s fall, paved the way for later 
German unity. 

Nearly all these German states, except Austria and Prussia, 
were leagued in the “Confederation of the Rhine,” under 
Napoleon as “Protector.” This amounted to a dissolution of 
the Holy Roman Empire, and in 1806 Francis II laid down that 
venerable title. Napoleon himself posed as the successor of 
1 These conditions are dimly suggested by the map after p. 118. 


Napoleon’s 
beginnings 
of con¬ 
solidation 


End of the 
Holy 
Roman 
Empire 


322 


NAPOLEON I 


Social 

reform 

in 

Germany 


Stein in 
Prussia 


the Roman emperors. Francis was allowed to console him¬ 
self with the title “Emperor of Austria/’ for his hereditary 
realms, instead of his previous title, “Arch-Duke of Austria.” 

How far does Napoleon deserve gratitude for so sweeping away 
old and obstructive features in the map of Germany ? He had 
not much personally to gain by his action in this matter. Seem¬ 
ingly the explanation, in large part at least, is that he was a 
born administrator to whom disorder and confusion was hateful: 
and, when he could, he cleaned it up — much as a good house¬ 
wife sometimes aches to clean up her neighbor’s neglected 
and dusty parlor. 

And Napoleon’s influence, too, began great social reforms in 
Germany. In the Confederacy of the Rhine and in the many 
kingdoms of Napoleon’s brothers and generals, serfdom and 
feudalism were abolished, and civil equality and the “Code 
Napoleon” were introduced. Everywhere, too, the administra¬ 
tion of justice was made cheap and simple, and the old clumsy 
and corrupt methods of government gave way to order and 
efficiency. 

Most striking of all was the reform in Prussia. Elsewhere 
the new methods were introduced by French agents or under 
French influence. In Prussia, reform came from a Prussian 
minister, and was adopted in order to make Prussia strong 
enough to cast off the French yoke. 

Jena had proved that the old Prussian system was utterly 
rotten. The guiding spirit in a new Prussian ministry was 
Stein, who labored to fit Prussia for leadership in freeing and 
regenerating Germany. 1 The serfs were changed into free 
peasant-landowners. The caste distinctions in society were 
broken down. The old law had recognized distinct classes, 
— peasants, burgesses, and nobility, — and had practically 
forbidden an individual to pass from one class into another. 
Even the land had been bound by the caste system: no noble 

1 Curiously enough, this almost solitary progressive among Prussian 
statesmen was Prussian not by birth but by adoption. 








































THE RETREAT FROM MOSCOW 


323 


could sell land to the citizen of a town; nor could noble or 
townsman sell to a peasant. All this was now done away. 
Some self-government was granted to the towns. And many 
of the best principles of the French reforms were adopted. 
Napoleon’s insolence and the domination of the French armies 
at last had forced part of Germany into the beginning of a new 

national patriotism; and 
that patriotism began to 
arm itself by borrowing 
weapons from the arsenal 
of the French Revolution. 

In 1810 Napoleon’s 
power had reached its 
widest limits. The huge 
bulk of France filled the 
space from the Ocean to 
the Rhine, including not 
only the France which we 
know, but also Belgium, 
half of Switzerland, and 
large strips of German 
territory,—while from this 
central body two outward- 
curving arms reached 
toward the east, one along the North Sea to the Danish Pen¬ 
insula, and the other down the coast of Italy past Rome. 

This vast territory was all organized in French Departments. 
The rest of Italy and half the rest of Germany were under 
Napoleon’s '‘protection,” and were ruled by his appointees. 
Denmark and Switzerland, too, were his dependent allies; 
and Prussia and Austria were unwilling ones. Only the extrem¬ 
ities of the continent kept their independence, and even there, 
Sweden and Russia were his friends. 

But Russia was growing hostile. Alexander was offended 
by the partial restoration of Poland (as the Duchy of Warsaw). 



Greatest 
extent of 
Napoleon’ 
sway 




324 


NAPOLEON I 


The 

“ Retreat 
from 

Moscow ” 


Battle 

of 

Leipzig 


The Continental System, too, was growing more and more 
burdensome. Russia needed English markets, and in 1811 the 
Tsar refused longer to enforce the “System/’ 

Napoleon at once declared war. In 1812 he invaded Russia 
and penetrated to Moscow. The Russians set fire to the city, 
so that it should not afford him winter quarters; but, with rare 
indecision, he stayed there five weeks, hoping in vain that the 
Tsar would offer to submit. Then, too late, in the middle of 
October, when the Russian winter was already upon them, the 



Napoleon Leaving Moscow.— From an imaginative painting. 

French began the terrible “Retreat from Moscow,” fighting 
desperately each foot of the way against cold, starvation, and 
clouds of Cossack cavalry. Nine weeks later, twenty thousand 
miserable scarecrows recrossed the Niemen. The “Grand 

Army, a half million strong, had left its bones among Russian 
snows. 

« 

The Russians kept up the pursuit into Germany, and the 
enthusiasm of the Prussian people forced the government to 
declare against Napoleon. University professors enlisted at 
the head of companies of their students in a “war of liberation.” 
Women ga\e their jewels and even their hair, to buy arms and 



THE FALL OF NAPOLEON 


325 


supplies. The next summer, Austria also took up arms. By 
tremendous efforts, Napoleon raised a new army of boys and old 
men from exhausted France, and for a time he kept the field 
victoriously in Germany ; but in October, 1813, he met crushing 
defeat at Leipzig, in the “ Battle of the Nations.” 

Napoleon letreated across the Rhine. His vassal kings fled 
from their thrones, and most of the small states now joined his 
enemies. England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, acting in close 
concert, took to themselves the name a The Allies,” and main¬ 
tained a perfect understanding. After Leipzig, they proposed 
peace, offering to leave Napoleon his crown, with the Rhine for 
the boundary of France. Like a desperate gamester, bound to 
wm or lose all, Napoleon rejected these terms. The Allies 
then advanced to the Rhine, and offered peace with the French 
boundaries of 1792. Napoleon again refused. The Allies in¬ 
vaded Franee at several points, with overwhelming numbers; 
and, in spite of Napoleon’s superb defense, they entered Paris 
victoriously in March, 1814, and dictated peace. 

The Allies made Napoleon a large allowance, and granted him 
the island or Elba, in the Mediterranean, as an independent 
principality. The Bourbon heir to the French throne, one of the 
Emigrant brothers of Louis XVI, appeared, promised a constitu¬ 
tion to France, and was quietly recognized by the French Senate 
as Louis XVIII. 1 The Allies avoided the appearance of im¬ 
posing this king upon France, but they liked the arrangement. 
To make it popular, they granted liberal terms of peace. France 
kept her territory as it was before the Revolution. The Allies 
withdrew their armies without imposing any war indemnity, 
such as France had exacted repeatedly from other countries; 
nor did they even take back the works of art that French armies 
had plundered from so many famous galleries in Europe. 

For Further Reading. — The best brief accounts of the Napoleonic 
era are given in Stephens’ Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815 and in Rose’s 

1 The son of Louis XVI had died in prison at Paris in 1795. According to 
the theory that he began to reign upon his father’s death in 1793, he is known 
as Louis XVII. 


Fall of 
Napoleon 


326 


THE FALL OF NAPOLEON 


Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era. The many histories of Napoleon 
are most of them defaced by extreme partisanship on one side or the 
other, or are too long for general use. Probably the best treatment is 
also the most recent, — Rose’s Napoleon the First. Anderson’s Con - 
stitutions and Documents gives an admirable selection of documents. 
Kennan’s Folktales about Napoleon is a curious and interesting volume. 


PART V 

A PERIOD OF REACTION, 1815-1848 


CHAPTER XIX 


THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA: RESTORATION 


Napoleon had wiped away the old map of Europe, and 
now his map fell to pieces. All the districts which had been 
annexed to France since 1792, and all the states which had 
been created by Napoleon, were left without governments. 
The old rulers of these states were clamoring for restoration. 
Other rulers wanted new acquisitions to pay for their exertions 
against Napoleon There was also a fear pervading Europe 
that from France either new and dangerous “Revolutionary” 
ideas or a new military conqueror might overrun the world. 
To settle these problems — to arrange for “restoration,” 
“reparation,” and “guarantees” —the four “Allies” invited 
all the sovereigns of Europe to a “ Peace Congress.” 

The Congress of Vienna assembled in November, 1814. The 
crowd of smaller monarchs and princes were entertained by 
their Austrian host in a constant round of masques and revels, 
while the four great Allies (Russia, Austria, Prussia, England) 
did the work in private committee. From time to time, as 
they reached agreements, they announced results to the Con¬ 
gress for public ratification. 

The territorial rearrangements fall under three heads. 

1. Italy was left in twelve states, and Germany in thirty-eight. 
These were all restored to their old ruling families. (The other 
phases of the “restoration” can be treated most conveniently 
in the next chapter.) 


Political 
chaos in 
Europe 


The 

Congress 
of Vienna 


Territorial 
rearrange¬ 
ments : 

‘‘restora¬ 
tions ” 


327 


328 


THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, 1814 


Guarantee 

against 

French 

attack 


Plunder 
for the 
Allies 


2. The states along the French frontier were strengthened, as one 
“guarantee ” against future aggression by France. (1) Holland 
was made into the Kingdom of the Netherlands, under the 
House of Orange, and Belgium was added to it, although the 
Belgians wished to be independent and objected very strongly 
to being made Dutch. (2) Nice and Savoy were given back 
to the Kingdom of Sardinia, to which was added also the old 
Republic of Genoa. (3) German territory west of the Rhine, 
now taken back from France, was divided between the power¬ 
ful kingdoms of Prussia and Bavaria. (4) The Congress 
guaranteed the “neutrality” of Switzerland, promising that 
all would join in punishing any country which in future wars 
should march troops through that state. Thus the entire 
European frontier next France, from the North Sea to the 
Mediterranean, was powerfully fortified. 

3. The remaining rearrangements had to do, directly or in¬ 
directly, with “compensating ” the Allies for their exertions and 
losses. Under cover of high-sounding phrases about founding 
“a durable peace based upon a just division of power,” the 
Congress became “a Congress for loot” and began a disgraceful 
scramble for spoils. 

(1) England had stood out alone for years against the whole 
power of Napoleon, and she had incurred an enormous national 
debt by acting as paymaster of the various coalitions. In 
repayment, she now kept Malta, the Ionian Islands, Cape 
Colony, Ceylon, and a few other colonial acquisitions, mainly 
from the old Dutch empire, which she had occupied during 
the war. 


The Second Hundred Years’ War ” can now be seen 
as a whole, in relation to world-empire. The first period 
(1689-1763) is covered in pp. 231-233, 242-245: it is 
known in America as the period of Intercolonial Wars. 
It ended with the exclusion of F ranee from North America 
and India, to England’s gain. The second period (1775— 
1783) is the period of the American Revolution. England 


THE ALLIES FALL OUT 


329 


lost the richest part of her American empire, but she made 
gains elsewhere at the expense of France, Spain, and 
Holland, and acquired Australia. The third period, the wars 
of the French Revolution and Napoleon (1792-1815), left 
England the one great colonial power. Spain 1 and 
Holland still had some possessions outside Europe; but 
their holdings were insignificant beside England’s. 

(2) Austria, received back all her lost territory, except distant 
Belgium in place of which she accepted Venetia and Lombardy, 
much to the distaste of the inhabitants of those districts. 

(3) Alexander, Tsar of Russia, secured Finland from Sweden ; 
and he demanded also further reward in Poland. The Duchy 
of Warsaw (p. 321), he insisted, should be made into a kingdom 
of Poland, and he should be the king. But this plan conflicted 
with Prussian ambition. 

(4) Prussia gained Pomerania from Sweden; but the Prus¬ 
sian king insisted also upon regaining the Polish provinces 
that Napoleon had taken from him for the Duchy of Warsaw. 
Alexander promised to aid Prussia to get Saxony instead. 
The king of Saxony had been a zealous ally of Napoleon to 
the last; and so, Alexander urged, it would be proper to make 
an exception in his case to the careful respect shown by the 
conquerors to all other “legitimate rulers.” 

Prussia was ready to accept this; but Austria feared such 
extension of Prussia toward the heart of Germany, and vehe¬ 
mently opposed the plan. England took her side. Thus the 
four Allies were divided, — Russia and Prussia against Austria 
and England, — and came to the verge of war with one another. 
Perhaps the most interesting result of this was the way in which 
France wormed her way bach into the European circle. The 
Allies had meant to give that “outlaw nation” no voice what¬ 
ever at the peace table. But Talleyrand, the shrewd French 
diplomat, was present at Vienna as a looker-on; and now, 
by offering French aid to Austria and England at a critical 

1 For Spain’s loss of colonial empire later, cf. p. 340. 


The Allies 
nearly fall 
out 


330 


THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, 1814 


moment, he won a place for his country in the Congress, and, 
as he said, exultingly but rather prematurely, “ broke up forever 
the alliance against her.” 

Finally a compromise was made — the more readily that 
Napoleon had broken loose (see below). In addition to her gain 
of Pomerania, Prussia took half of Saxony and considerable 
German territory, recovered from France, west of the Rhine 
(see above). 

It should be noted that Sweden, which in the time of 
Peter the Great had surrounded the Baltic, had now retired 
wholly into the northern peninsula. There, however, she 
found some compensation. Denmark (which had been the 
ally of Napoleon) now had to surrender Norway, and this 
land the Congress of Vienna turned over to Swede?i in return 
for Finland and Pomerania. How, out of this arrange- 
L ment, the Norwegians won independence in a ninety years' 
struggle is told in a later chapter, — one of the finest 
stories of the nineteenth century. 


Napoleon’s 
brief 
return: 

“ The 
Hundred 
Days ” 


During the dissensions regarding Saxony, the Congress was 
startled by the news that Napoleon had left Elba. A few 
months of Bourbon rule had filled France with unrest. The 
Tricolor, under which Frenchmen had marched in triumph 
into nearly every capital in Europe, had been replaced by the 
Bourbon White flag, and many Napoleonic officers had been 
dismissed from the army to make way for returned Emigrants, 
who for twenty years had fought against France. Thus the 
army was restless. The extreme Royalists were talking, too, 
of restoring the land of the church and of the Emigrants, 
though it had passed for a generation into other hands. In 
consequence, the peasants and the middle class were uneasy. 

Napoleon, learning how matters stood, landed in France, 
almost unattended. The forces sent to capture him joined his 
standard; and in a few days, he entered Paris in triumph, 
without firing a shot, as he had foretold he would do. The 
king and the old Emigrants emigrated again. Napoleon offere 










































THE HUNDRED DAYS 


331 


a liberal constitution, and France 
ing plebiscite. 


accepted it by an overwhelm- 


The Ate homver, refused even to treat with Napoleon, 
ey declared unrelenting war upon him as “the disturber of 
e peace of Europe,” and promptly moved powerful armies to 
.he French frontier. No time was given Napoleon for prepa- 
ration, and the odds were overwhelming. After a brief rule 
known as the Hundred Days, he 
was crushed at Waterloo by the 
English under Wellington and the 
Prussians under Bliicher (June 18, 

1815), and sent this time to hope¬ 
less exile, under guard, on the dis¬ 
tant volcanic rock of St. Helena in 
the South Atlantic. 

The Allies reentered Paris, 

“ bringing Louis XVIII in their 
baggage/’ as the French wits put 
it, and dictated to France a new 
treaty, much more severe than that 
of 1814. Prussia, indeed, urged 
that France should be dismem- 



Mild terms 
for France 


The Duke of Wellington. 


bered, as she herself had been after Jena. Some Prussian papers 
talked of killing off the whole French people “like mad dogs,” 
and moderate statesmen wished to take Alsace and Lorraine (as 
Bismarck did do fifty years later) and other territory that had 
been seized from Germany by Louis XIV. But Alexander and 
England insisted on milder punishment, in order that the people 
might not utterly reject the Bourbon rule; and France was 
required only (1) to give up some small strips of land containing 
about a half-million people, (2) to pay a small war indemnity 
($140,000,000), and (3) to restore the works of art which Napo¬ 
leon’s armies had plundered from European galleries. 

During the Hundred Days, the Congress finished its work. 
Some of its later measures were highly praiseworthy. England 
persuaded the Powers to join in a declaration against the slave 


Some rivers 
“ interna¬ 
tionalized ” 




332 


THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 


A peace of 
kings, not 
of peoples 


trade; 1 and the navigation of rivers flowing through or between 
different countries was declared free to the commerce of all 
countries (“internationalized”). A country in possession of 
the mouth of a river had been in the habit of closing it against 
the trade of other nations. Thus Spain, while she held both 
banks of the mouth of the Mississippi (1783-1801), had tried to 
follow this policy—to the wrath of American settlers up the river 
and on the Ohio. The principle established at Vienna was a 
step forward for civilization. Moreover, it was worth much 
for Europe to recognize that it had common interests, and that 
it could arrange them in a peaceful Congress. This was an 
advance from eighteenth century politics toward the Hague 
Congress, the Peace Congress of 1919, and the League of 
Nations. 

The Congress of Vienna, to be sure, had no thought of this 
great movement. That “assemblage of princes and lackeys ” 
stood for reaction. As an English historian says, — “ It com¬ 
placently set to work to turn back the hands of time to the 
historic hour at which they stood before the Bastille fell.” 
It represented kings, not peoples. All the republics which had 
appeared since the French Revolution and also the old re¬ 
publics — the United Provinces, Venice, and Genoa — were 
given to monarchs. “ Republics,” said the Austrian Metternich 
(p. 335), “seem to have gone out of fashion.” Switzerland 
was the only republic left in Europe, — and it was given an 
inefficient, loose union, far less effective than it had enjoyed 
under Napoleon’s supremacy. Peoples were never consulted. 
The Congress transferred Belgians, Norwegians, Poles, Vene¬ 
tians, from freedom to a master, or from one master to another, 

in every case against their fierce resentment. 

The next hundred years' were to be busied very largely in 

1 Thereafter, England kept ships of war on the African coast to capture 
pirate slaving vessels. But, unhappily, the United States was unwilling to 
grant the necessary “right of search”; and so, until 1861, the horrible 
African slave trade continued to be carried on mainly by ships under the 
protection of the Stars and Stripes, — although the foreign slave trade had 
been illegal in the United States since 1808. 


AND REACTION 


333 


undoing the work of this first Peace Congress, until not one 
stone of its building was left upon another. Thus, when the 
next great Peace Congress met, in 1919 , it had only to turn 

back to the Congress of Vienna for a perfect example of “How 
not to do it.” 


, , Add .!? the llst of dates the following: 1776, 1789, 

1815. The teacher will note that some phases of the work of the 

ongress are best seen after the study of the “alliances” to enforce 
peace and to preserve order (p. 568). 


CHAPTER XX 


Absurdities 
of the 
reaction 
after 1815 


CENTRAL EUROPE TO 1820 

The history of the nineteenth century is the history of the influences 
which the French Revolution left. — Frederic Harrison. 

N0 land touched by the French Revolution was ever again quite the 
same. — Frederick A. Ogg. 

The immediate result of the Congress of Vienna was a victory 
for reaction and despotism. In many states, especially in the 
pettier ones, the restoration of the old rulers was accompanied 
by ludicrous absurdities. The princes who had scampered 
away before the French eagles, came back to show that they 
had “ learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” They set out 
to ignore the past twenty years. In France a school history 
spoke of Austerlitz as “ a victory gained by General Bonaparte, 
a lieutenant of the king” ! The Elector of Hesse censured his 
military Commandant for “omitting quarterly reports during 
the preceding ten years” — during which the Elector had been 
a fugitive in England. The king of Sardinia restored serfdom. 
The Papal States and Spain again set up the Inquisition. In 
some places French plants were uprooted from the botanical 
gardens, and street lamps and vaccination were abolished be¬ 
cause they were “French improvements.” 

The statesmen of the Great Powers must have smiled to 
themselves at some of these absurd extremes; but they, too, 
almost universally strove to suppress progress. Five states — 
Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, and England — really deter¬ 
mined the policy of Europe. The first four were “divine right” 
monarchies. Louis XVIII gave France a limited Charter, 
but it carefully preserved the theory of divine right. That 
theory, of course, could have no place in England, where the 

334 





POLICY OF REPRESSION 335 

EnZd'theWV " ReVolution of ^88 ; but even in 
England the Whigs were discredited, because they had sympa¬ 
thized at first with the French Revolution. For some X 
he government there was in the hands of the Tory party 

which was bitterly opposed to progress. y ’ 

ternfch e ” rU M°i f i NaP u le0n succeeded b Y the rule of Met- 
• Metternich was the chief servant of the Emperor 

slbtle mlroit ^ T' direCt ° r ° f AuStrian policy ' He was 
said of ht tb r, U "° US ’ WUty ’ unscri *P u lous. Napoleon 

and 7 ? ,St0 ° k intr!gUe for statesmanship”; 

and Stein (p. 322) complained that he was “overfond of com- 

p ications and did not know how to do business “in the great 
and simple way.” g 

Far more than any other one man, Metternich had guided 
proceedings .n the Congress of Vienna, and he continued to be 
he evil genius of Europe from 1814 to 1848. He summed up 
is political creed thus : “Sovereigns alone are entitled to guide 
e destinies of their peoples, and they are responsible to none 
T . ■ V Government is no more a subject for debate 

than religion is. The “new ideas” of democracy and equality 
and nationality ought never to have been allowed to get 
into urope, he said; but, since they were in, the business of 
governments must be to keep them down. He was too shrewd 
to expect to bring back altogether the days before the French 
evo ution; but he did hope to arrest all change at the lines 

, . . . _ more sanguine mo¬ 

ments, indeed, he spoke of the democratic impulses resulting 

rom the Revolution as “a gangrene, to be burned out of Europe 
with red-hot iron.” 

The political reaction was the more galling to the friends 
o liberty because the “Wars of Liberation” in 1812-1814 had 

r JJ he Se u t]ime ? t ° f nationality is the feeling among all the people of one 
race, speech, and country that they should make one political state or 
become a “nation ” This feeling tended to draw all German! into on! 
German state, and all Italians into one Italian state. In any conglom 

r e r^n A g fr. in that day ’ the *•“- ° f 


Metternich, 
the evil 
genius of 
the reaction 


Disappoint¬ 
ment of 
European 
Liberals 


The 

Germanic 

Confedera¬ 

tion 


336 RULE OF METTERNICH, 1814-1848 

been essentially popular uprisings. The Prussian king had 
made lepeated appeals to national patriotism, and had twice 
promised a constitution. Austria and England had held out 
hopes of union and freedom to the Italians. And the Spanish 
rebels had adopted a free constitution for their country. 

Thus the Liberals of Europe had greeted Napoleon’s over¬ 
throw with joyous acclaim; but soon it seemed that Waterloo 
had done little toward freeing Europe. It simply “replaced 
one insolent giant by a swarm of swaggering pygmies.” The 
allied despots had used the peoples to overthrow a rival despot, 
and then they betrayed the peoples and recalled their promises 
only as a jest. A few months after Waterloo, the English poet 
Byron lamented that “the chain of banded nations has been 
broke in vain by the accord of raised-up millions” ; and, “stand¬ 
ing on an Empire’s dust” at the scene of the great battle, and 

noting “how that red rain has made the harvest grow,” he 
mused: — 

“Gaul may champ the bit and foam in fetters, 

But is Earth more free ? 

Did nations combat to make one submit, 

Or league to teach all kings true sovereignty? . 

Then o er one fallen despot boast no more.” 

Metternich’s chief victory at the Congress of Vienna lay in 
the new organization of Germany. No one thought of re¬ 
storing the discredited Holy Roman Empire. Liberal Ger¬ 
many, represented by Stein (p. 322), had hoped for a real union, 
either in a consolidated German Empire or in a new federal 
state. But Metternich saw that in a true German empire, 
Austria (with her Slav, Hungarian, and Italian interests) could 
not long keep the lead against Prussia. He preferred to leave 
the various states practically independent, so that Austria, the 
largest of all, might play them off against one another. The 
small rulers, too, were hostile to a real union, because it would 
limit their sovereignties. Metternich allied himself, in the 
Congress, with these princes of the small states, and won. The 
thirty-eight German states were organized into a “Germanic 


10 


12 


11 


16 


18 


20 


22 


56 


54 


THE 

GERMANIC 

CONFEDERATION 

FROM 

1815 to 18G7 

SCALE OF MILES 

6 25 50 75 100 125 


AT O 


R T H 


S E A 




^ COPENHAGEN 

&R kA s 


M U&E K 

■v . J O / 


HELGOLAND. 
( British) 


6 







tyyder\ 
Zee 
rdai 

Utrecht < y~ 


.-9 


OjcTerihurjfSl 5 
/' / . S 


*//* P 


^ r_c£ .i 


^ . 

► " (H _SN 0 

1 % '- N N >&/ 






40sh 

_ ■■'J .. o 

X-_ Munster 

\Nv ( WEST 

, J ^. 

./JULVIER N 


• '~fiy f )- vr .. v, 

a'-tlMBUEri/ V. y.KPusse'ldorf 
M c TO ^clewes-'-. 

* 

o 'vi-r^i *» V V 





a 


* 






gottland 


Up 


cg 


BORNHOLM 


GEN 


c 


Mernel 


\ 


56 


X^O 


b '•>' • 

t .R^kELITz/ 

[.Sfrel 




tz 


D i 


abruck -5 . .. 

- ** rtT^pcK 
h detmolB 

p H A L I a 


T-U") 

-y mT^)] j),' 
ilia <r XT vU in ^'T^"' s “UtCa 
\j ^Va~x \ 

/ Tla!sselAU £> '>vr~''-5 Hall 

'} ,C-J VeI\E cr^. V— 

r^v 


Oagdeburg 

V - -— 


/v* ; iiess «A V 

J ' 

ssAtei * ,/v 

/xJ 


Ul 


•TrU v 

1 ^Leipzig e-\Dr 


P'9ort'.V'ivi&.r^V’“ ,, “ rs , 



A 5 r '%°^ 


VV4. --I 7 r^Te 

\j'?V> ) A* Carlsbad 

I - f ) \J o 






u 


is 


incy 


_ Strasburg* o i 


4 ^-^ ; sS > Stmtgart 
, v' w U R’PEl M B E R G CRZ 


Flombi&rtU-^ 


« 


46 



"US?? 


Ulm 



\ 





!CjO\ oGorlitz 
Munch engratz 1 rj. 


Sadowa 




/ 

Kurembi rg 
(0 F 


o 

Pilsen 


-'Onstance^ “ 
^Zurich 
■ernpU^ 

24 


R‘ L a n 

„ .r'7 ;1 / 

y s ^ ^ 



j .^ V'anuJ 

: C&fi'T _j./—/• N 

/U^B A} V 4 I< I A, 

0 Augsburg 

Munich * 





e vv 

D , V. v '*^—' ^ 

pile jKbnigk ^,t z 

roppau 0 ' 



Magi 

p r -bvarao 

I. P . f' /E D M J 0 

^ Turin* 


in ta 


L O AJ\B a K D 

_Verona 

So, ferino 1 
antua 1 


52 


50 


'iI^uTnNj jA- 

BudalPtEt 


r'}'& AL'Z'B U R G 
b--, oGastein 

\ * ~' N 1 

T T K 6 l 

oBozer -7^ 


THIA 

. o _ 

b'Klagenfurt 


Laibac.h 

o 


4 ET I A fVb[r 5 CARNIOL 

T //U J / - T, Lcto Cn 




14 


I 

V.. 




-^‘a<lua 


.franca 




(PAR ,IA r y r 

Genoa > ^ T^o.^Ravenn,, 

^ ; EMILIA 




Po 


w 


iterrane. 

S E A 




\ Florence 0 k 

V 0 ^ 

TUSCANY 


.Trieste. ~’i 

A C CROIAT! 

' ''S-. ! 


iSTIAAj^pjmjje 




CP 




( MARCHES 





V 


\ 



48 


A gram 


46 


44 





10 


14 


16 


18 


L.L. P0ATEI, ENGR., N.Y. 
20 



































































































































































THE GERMANIC CONFEDERATION 


337 


Confederation, a loose league of sovereigns. (Thirty-four of 
the members were sovereign princes; the other four were the 
governments of the surviving “free cities,” — Hamburg, 
Bremen, Liibeck, and Frankfort.) Each state controlled its 
own government, its own army, its own tariffs, and its own 
foreign diplomacy. They even kept the right to form alliances 
with foreign powers, — although they did promise not to make 
war upon one another. 

The Confederacy had no distinct executive, judicial, and 
legislative departments. Its one organ was a Federal Diet at 
Frankfort. This was merely a standing conference of ambas¬ 
sadors appointed by the sovereigns: no important action could 
be taken without the consent of every state. Before many 
years the Diet was the laughingstock of Europe. “It was not 
a government at all: it was a polite and ceremonious way of 
doing nothing.” 

But though the chance for making one German nation had 
been lost, the Liberals still hoped, for a time, for free political 
institutions in the separate states. Within the next four years, 
constitutions were granted by the liberal Grand Duke of Weimar 
and by the rulers of Nassau and of the four South German 
states, W urtemberg, Bavaria, Baden, and Hesse-Dannstadt. 
(Germany south of the river Main is known as South Germany.) 
The people in these southern districts had been greatly in¬ 
fluenced by the French Revolution, and their rulers made 
these grants largely in order to secure popular support against 
possible encroachments of Austria or Prussia upon their terri¬ 
tory. The constitutions left the princes still the real rulers 
of their states; but they provided for equality of all classes 
before the law, for freedom of the press, and for representative 
assemblies with control over new taxes. (Most taxes continued 
from year to year, without new enactment.) 

King Frederick William III of Prussia, also, appointed a 
committee to draw up the constitution he had promised (p. 336). 
But he was a weak, vacillating man, and greatly influenced 
by the nobles, who railed bitterly at the idea of free institutions. 


A few 

constitu 

tions 


338 


RULE OF METTERNICH, 1814-1848 


Disappoint¬ 
ment and 
radical 
agitation 


The 

Karlsbad 

Decrees 


The committee dawdled along for four years, and finally the 
king repudiated his pledge. 

Outside the Rhine districts the Liberals were not numerous, 
but the group was influential, — made up of writers, journalists, 
students, professors, and most of the rest of the small educated 
middle class. They were particularly strong in the universities, 
where professors and students organized societies ( Burschen - 
schaften ) to agitate for German freedom and union. By 1817, 
they had become indignant at the delays and evasions by which 
promised constitutions were withheld. In October, the three- 
hundredth anniversary of Luther’s defiance of the pope and the 
fourth anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig were celebrated to¬ 
gether at the Wartburg castle (the place of Luther’s “retreat” 
after the Diet of Worms); and the students of the neighboring 
Jena University turned the celebration into a demonstration 
of liberal feeling. They sang patriotic and religious songs, 
made a few ardent speeches, and, in the evening, imitating 
Luther’s burning of the Papal bull, threw some old textbooks 
into a bonfire, — having first labeled them with the names of 
reactionary works especially hated by the Liberal party. 

This boyish ebullition threw sober statesmen into spasms of 
fear, and seemed to them to prelude a revolutionary “ Reign 
of Terror.” Metternich took shrewd advantage of the oppor¬ 
tunity to wean the king of Prussia from his earlier liberalism. 
Unhappily, Metternich’s hand was strengthened by the foolish 
crimes of some Liberal enthusiasts. A small section of radical 
agitators preached that even assassination in the cause of 
liberty was right; and, in 1819, a fanatical student murdered 
Kotzebue, a Russian representative in Germany, who was 
supposed to be drawing the Tsar away from his earlier liberal 
sympathies. 

Metternich was prompt to seize the chance. He at once 
called the leading sovereigns of Germany to a conference at 
Karlsbad. There he secured their approval for a series of 
resolutions, which he afterward forced through the Diet at 
Frankfort. These Karlsbad Decrees of 1819 were especially 


THE KARLSBAD DECREES 


339 


directed against free speech in the press and in the universities. 
They forbade secret societies among students; they appointed 
a government official in every university to discharge any 
professor who should preach doctrines “hostile to the public 
order”; they set up a rigid censorship of all printed matter; and 
they .created a standing committee to hunt down conspiracies. 

For thirty years the Karlsbad Decrees remained the funda¬ 
mental law of the Germanic Confederacy; and under them 
thousands of enthusiastic youths were sent into exile or to 
prison for long terms, for singing forbidden patriotic songs, or 
for wearing the colors black, red, and orange, — the colors of 
the old Empire, now adopted as the symbol of German unity. 1 

Turnvater Jahn, the organizer of the patriotic Turner socie¬ 
ties in the time of Napoleon, and the poet Arndt, whose songs 
had done much to arouse the people against French rule, were 
both persecuted. Learned professors who would not consent 
to be completely muzzled were driven from the universities. 
Men ceased to talk politics, and left matters of government to 
piinces. Germany was started upon the incline down which 
she was to slide to a fatal abyss. 

For Further Reading. — The most desirable general treatment of 
the nineteenth century for high schools is Hazen’s Europe Since 1815. 
Duplicate copies of this work will be better than a multiplicity of 
references; but students should have access also to Andrews’ Modern 
Europe and Seignobos’ Europe Since I8I4. Carlton Hayes’ Modern 
Europe , II, deals with the period 1815—1915 in an exceedingly interest¬ 
ing way, but from a more ‘ radical ’ view-point than the other works 
mentioned here. 

1 These colors had been used as the flag of the patriotic uprising against 
Napoleon in 1814 ; but their use was now punished severely — even in such 
ingeniously evasive combinations as a black coat, a yellow (straw) hat, and 
a red vest! 


CHAPTER XXI 


THE SOUTH OF EUROPE — REVOLUTIONS OF 1820 


The 

Spanish 
“ Constitu¬ 
tion of 1812 ” 


Independ¬ 
ence of 
Spanish 
America 


Restoration 
of Ferdi¬ 
nand 


The first attacks upon Metternich’s system came from the 
South of Europe. To understand them we must turn back a 
moment to notice conditions in Spain. The Spanish patriots 
who rose in 1808 against Napoleon (p. 318) found themselves 
without a government. Their king was in the hands of the 
French The insurgent leaders came largely from the small, 
educated middle class, who had been converted to the ideals 
of the early French Revolution. These leaders set up a repre¬ 
sentative assembly (the Cortes), and, in 1812, they adopted a 
liberal constitution. This “Constitution of 1812” was modeled 
largely upon the French Constitution of 1791, and it was the 
standard about which the Liberals of southern Europe were to 
rally for a generation. 

Meantime, when Napoleon seized Spain, the Spanish Ameri¬ 
can states refused to recognize his authority, and so became 
virtually independent under governments of their own. At 
first, most of these new governments were in name loyal to the 
Spanish crown. During the next few years, however, the 
Spanish Americans experienced the benefits of freedom and of 
free trade with the world, and began to follow the example of 
the United States, which had so recently been merely a group 
of European colonies. By 1820, all the Spanish states on the 
continent of America had become virtually independent nations 1 
—* in which movement they had been directly encouraged by 
England and the United States. 

After the fall of Napoleon, the Spanish king, Ferdinand, re¬ 
turned to his throne. He had promised to maintain the new 


1 Special report: the story of the heroic Bolivar. 

340 




“ the HOLY ALLIANCE ” 341 

constitution; but he soon broke his pledges, restored all the old 
iniquities, and cruelly persecuted the Liberal heroes of the “ war 
of liberation/’ 

In 1820 he collected troops to subdue the revolted American 
colonies, but the service was unpopular, and one of the regi¬ 
ments, instead of embarking, raised the standard of revolt 
and proclaimed the Constitution of 1812. Tumult followed in 
Madrid. The king, cowardly as he was treacherous, yielded, 
called the Cortes, and restored the constitution. 

This Spanish Revolution of 1820 became the signal for like 
attempts in other states. Before the year closed, Portugal and 
Naples both forced their kings to grant constitutions modeled 
upon that of Spain. Early in the next year, the people and 
army of Piedmont 1 rebelled, to secure a constitution for the 
Kingdom of Sardinia. Lombardy and Venetia stirred rest¬ 
lessly in the overpowering grasp of Austria. And the Greeks 

began a long and heroic struggle for independence against 
Turkey. 

This wide-spread unanimity of action was due in part to secret 
revolutionary societies, already in existence. The most im¬ 
portant of these was the Carbonari (“charcoal burners”). 
It had been formed in Italy in the time of Napoleon, to drive 
out the French, and was continued there to drive out Austrian 
rule and to unite Italy. 

We have seen how Metternich used the Germanic Confeder¬ 
acy, designed for protection against foreign attack, to stifle 
liberalism in Germany. We are now to observe how he adroitly 
twisted an alliance of monarchs from its original purpose in order 
to crush these revolutions in Southern Europe. 

After Waterloo, while the four “Allies” were still in Paris 
(November 20, 1815), they agreed to preserve their union 
and to hold meetings from time to time. The purpose was to 
guard against any future aggression by France. But when the 

1 Piedmont (“Foot of the Mount”) was the district between the Alps and 
the plains of Lombardy. It was the most important part of the Kingdom of 
Sardinia. 


The Spanish 
Revolution 
of 1820 


Revolution 
spreads 
through 
the South 
of Europe 


Interven¬ 
tion by 
“the Holy 
Alliance ” 


342 


REVOLUTIONS OF 1820-1821 


England 

protests 


But Italian 
constitu¬ 
tions are 
crushed 


revolutions of 1820 began, Metternich assembled the absolute 
sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and Prussia in a “Congress” at 
Troppau, where they signed gladly a declaration that they 
would intervene to put down revolution against any established 
government. This principle of “intervention” was a proclama¬ 
tion that the “divine right” monarchs would support one 
another against the nations. It was directed against the right 
of a people to make its government for itself. 

England protested against this doctrine, both before and 
after the meeting, and formulated in opposition to it the prin¬ 
ciple of “non-intervention.” This was the doctrine that each 
nation should manage its internal affairs as it chose. On this 
issue, England now withdrew from the alliance of 1815. Un¬ 
daunted by England’s protests, however, a decision to enforce 
the Troppau program was adopted by the united eastern despots, 
known popularly from this time as the Holy Alliance. 

This name belongs strictly not to this outgrowth of the political 
alliance of November, 1815, but to a wholly different league organized 
two months earliei by the Tsar, under the influence of strong religious 
emotion. In September, 1815, Alexander had presented to the mon¬ 
archs a brief agreement whereby the signers would promise to govern 
their respective peoples as “branches of one Christian nation” in 
accordance with “the precepts of justice, charity, and 'peace” (Penn¬ 
sylvania Reprints, I, No. 3.) No one took very seriously this “pious 
verbiage,” as Metternich called it, except the Tsar himself and his 
friend Frederick William of Prussia; but, from motives of courtesy, 
it was signed by every Christian ruler on the continent, except the pope. 
This League called itself the “Holy Alliance,” but it never had exist¬ 
ence except on paper. Its name came to be applied to the Troppau league, 
— so different in composition and purpose. The confusion was helped 
by the fact that the three despotic sovereigns who signed the Troppau 
agreement were also the first three signers of the “Holy Alliance.” 

The fust success of the despot league came in divided and 
helpless Italy. A few months after Troppau, the three allied 
monarchs met again at Laibach. With them now was Ferdi¬ 
nand of Naples, another treacherous Bourbon king. He had 
sworn solemnly to uphold the new Neapolitan constitution 


“ THE HOLY ALLIANCE ” 343 

(p. 441), and had invoked the vengeance of Heaven upon his 
head if he should prove unfaithful. But at the moment of these 
protestations he was in secret correspondence with Metternich, 
and now he came to Laibach for help to regain his absolutism! 
The Laibach meeting sent an Austrian army to Naples. The 
Neapolitans were defeated ; and Ferdinand returned, surrounded 
by Austrian bayonets, to glut his vengeance upon the Liberals, 
with dungeon and scaffold. 

Thiee days after the Neapolitan defeat came a revolt in 
Piedmont (March 10, 1821). The “Congress of Laibach” 
promptly marched eighty thousand Austrians into North Italy, 
while one hundred thousand Russians were held ready to 
support them; and the Piedmontese were easily crushed. 

Flushed with success, the “ Holy Alliance ” determined next to 
overthrow also the Spanish constitution, from which the “con¬ 
tagion of liberty ” had spread. In 1822 the despotic Powers were 
summoned to a Congress at Verona, and now they were joined 
by France. England again protested vigorously. The French 
representative tried to reconcile England by pleading that a 
constitution might be all very well in Spain, but that it should 
be a constitution granted by the king, not one forced upon him 
by rebels against his authority. Wellington, the English rep¬ 
resentative, Tory though he was, fitly answered this “ divine 
right plea: Do you not know, sir, that it is not kings who 
make constitutions, but constitutions that make kings?” 

But, against this “Holy Alliance” of despots, England could 
do no more than protest, so far as war upon the continent was 
concerned; and, with the sanction of the “ crowned conspira¬ 
tors of Verona” (as Sydney Smith called them in England), a 
French army restored the old absolutism in Spain. Then the 
Bourbon Ferdinand in Spain, like his namesake in Naples, 
busied himself for many months in a reactionary “Reign of 
Terror” — infinitely more despicable, more senseless, more cruel, 
and more harmful, than any that “revolutionists” in Europe 
have ever perpetrated. (Cf. pp. 110, 143.) Meantime Metter¬ 
nich was congratulating himself with “ pious ” blasphemy, “ God 


Spanish 

constitu¬ 

tionalism 

crushed 


Spanish 

America 

saved by 

England 

and the 

Monroe 

Doctrine 


344 “ THE HOLY ALLIANCE ” 

seems willing to use me as his instrument to restore order to 
Europe.” 

The next wish of the “ Holy Alliance ” was to restore monarchic 
control in the revolted Spanish colonies. But here they failed. 
On the sea England was supreme. The Allies could not reach 
America without her consent, and she made it known that she 
would oppose the intended expedition with all her great might. 
Once more, as in Napoleon’s day and in Philip IPs, and now 
again in the Hohenzollerns’, the English sea power saved liberty. 

America shares in the credit of checking the despots. Can¬ 
ning, the English minister, urged the United States to join 
England in an alliance to protect Spanish America. The 
United States chose to act without formal alliance, 1 but it did 
act along the same lines. President Monroe’s message to 
C ongress in 1823 announced to the world that this country 
would oppose any attempt of the despotic Powers to extend 
their “political system” to America. 2 Probably the decided 
position of either England or the United States would have 
caused the Powers to abandon their project. Acting together, 
the two nations were certainly irresistible in America; and 
the “ Holy Alliance ” quietty dropped its plan. 

When reproached afterward, in Parliament, for not having 
done more to preserve constitutionalism in Spain, Canning 
replied with the proud boast, “I called the New World into 
existence to redress the balance of the Old.” It is possible 
to argue that both America and England acted from selfish 
motives, rather than from love of liberty. England wanted 
to keep her commerce with the free Spanish states ; and the 
United States objected to the neighborhood of a strong 
Power that might interfere with her leadership or with her 
safety. There is no doubt, however, that, along with 
these proper though selfish motives, both countries were 
actuated also by principle and by sympathy with freedom. 

1 See West’s American People, p. 425 ff. 

2 This is one part of the famous Monroe Doctrine. 


GREEK INDEPENDENCE 


345 


The accusation against Canning and the tone of his reply 
show what the real feeling of the English people was. 

Almost at once Metternich met another check, in the affairs of 
Greece. The rising there had been accompanied by terrible 
massacres of all Turks dwelling in the country, and the exasper¬ 
ated Turkish government was now putting down the rebellion 
by a war of extermination. For a time Metternich hoped to 
bring about intervention by the allied Powers to restore Turkish 
authority ; but he failed from two causes. 

1. The educated classes of Western Europe had been nourished 
mainly on the ancient Greek literature (p. 132), and now their 
imagination was fired by the thought that this struggle against 
the Turks was a contest akin to that ancient war against the 
Persians which Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, and Aeschylus 
had made glorious to them. The man who did most to widen 
this sympathy was Byron, the English poet. He closed a 
career of mingled genius and generosity and wrongdoing by a 
noble self-devotion, giving fortune and life to the Greek cause; 
and his poems, invoking the magic of the old names of Mara¬ 
thon and Salamis, stirred Europe to passionate enthusiasm. 
No schoolboy to-day can read the stirring lyric, “The Isles of 
Greece,” without quicker pulse-beat; but the European youth 
of Byron’s time were moved more deeply than the present 
generation can easily understand by the allusions in such pas¬ 
sages as these: 

“ Standing on the Persian’s grave, 

I could not deem myself a slave”; 


“Ye have the letters Cadmus gave; 

Think ye he meant them for a slave! ” 

Numbers of volunteers followed Byron to fight for Greek 
liberty, and before any government had taken action, the Turks 
complained that they had to fight all Europe. 

2. The Russian people, untouched by this Western passion, still 
felt a deep sympathy for the Greeks as their co-religionists, and a 


Greek 

independ¬ 

ence 

secured 



346 


REVOLUTIONS OF 1820 


Battle of 
Navarino 


deeper hatred for the Turks as their hereditary foes; and so 
Metternich lost his chief ally. For though the Tsar at first 
discountenanced the Greek rising, and even punished Russian 
officers who had encouraged it, still he was too much influenced 
by the feeling of his people to join in open intervention against 
the revolution. 

Finally, indeed, intervention came, but for the Greeks, not 
against them. The English, French, and Russian fleets had 
proceeded to Greece to enforce a truce, so as to permit negotia¬ 
tion. The three fleets were acting together under the lead of 
the English admiral, who happened to be the senior officer. 
Almost by chance, and chiefly through the excited feelings of the 
common sailors, the fleets came into conflict with the Turkish 
fleet, and annihilated it in the battle of Navarino (October, 
1827). The English commander had gone beyond his instruc¬ 
tions, but excited public feeling gave the government no chance 
to disown him. So the three Powers forced Turkey to grant 
independence to the Greeks. 

Elsewhere, however, Metternich was triumphant. Distant 
Greece did not affect his system in Western Europe — and the 
success of the Greeks did not come anyway for many years. 
For ten years after the overthrow of the gallant Spanish Revolu¬ 
tion, the reactionists had things their own way from England 
to Greece. 

The next attack on Metternich!s system came from France in 
1830. That story demands that we survey the story of France 
from Waterloo. 


CHAPTER XXII 


FRANCE AND THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1830 


When Louis X\ III became king (p. 325), he saw that France 
must have some guarantee of the personal rights which the Revo¬ 
lution had won. He refused indeed to accept a constitution 
which the old Senate of Napoleon tried to force upon him, but 
he himself gave to the nation the “ Charter of 1815 ” In this 
way he saved the theory of “divine right.” The preamble 
expressly declared the king the source of all authority. But 
the provisions of the document, otherwise, closely resembled 
the rejected constitution, and gave the people of France more 
liberty than anif other large country on the continent then had. 

The legislature had two Houses, — the Peers, appointed for 
life by the king, and the Deputies. These last were elected; 
but a very high property qualification let only one man in 
seventy vote. To be eligible for election, a man had to be 
still more wealthy, — so much so that in some districts it was 
hard to find any one to send to the legislature. The king 
kept an absolute veto and the sole right to propose laws. 

Purchasers of the church lands (confiscated and sold during 
the Revolution) were guaranteed in title. Religious liberty, 
equality before the law, free speech, and freedom of the press 
were confirmed. In local government, the centralized system 
of Napoleon was retained. 

In 1824 Louis was succeeded by his brother, Charles X, 
who was an extreme reactionary. He wanted to restore lands to 
the church, to give it control of all education, and to punish 
all old Revolutionists. By force and fraud, aided by the 
limitations on voting, the government secured a reactionary 
legislature. Then the king and legislature curtailed the free- 

347 


The Bour¬ 
bon “ divine 
right ” 
monarchy 


The 

“ Charter 
of 1815 ” 


Charles X 
attempts 
further 
reaction 


348 


REVOLUTIONS OF 1830 


The “ July 
Ordi¬ 
nances ” 
of 1830 


dom of the press, closed the historical lectures of the famous 
Guizot (a very moderate Liberal), joined the other crowned 
conspirators of Verona in overthrowing liberty in Spain (p. 343), 
plundered $200,000,000 from the national treasury for returned 
Emigrants, and strengthened still further the influence of 
the oligarchy by giving the largest landlords a double vote. 

Even this legislature, however, annoyed Charles because of 
the vigorous protests of the few Liberals; and in 1827 he dis¬ 
solved it, expecting under the new law to secure a still more 
submissive body. 

The issue was drawn clearly. Thiers, a brilliant young 
journalist, pleached the constitutional theory in the words 
The king reigns, but does not govern ,” and he made repeated 
and significant references in his paper to the English Revolution 
of 1688. On the other hand, Charles announced frankly that 
he legalded the legislature only as an advisory council. 

The elections showed that even the narrow body of voters 
was earnestly opposed to the king’s doctrine. The intellect of 
hlance and the influential part of the press were with the Liberal 

party , and, despite all court influence, the Liberals received a 
decisive majority. 

When Charles still tried to rule through a ministry of Ultras, 
the Assembly issued a bold address (March 2, 1830), calling for 
the dismissal of the ministry, that “menace to public safety.’' 
The address was carried by a vote of 221 to 182. Charles at 
once dissolved the Chamber. Public interest was intense, and 
the aged Lafayette journeyed through France to organize the 
Liberals for the contest at the polls. The new elections in 
June destroyed the Ultra party. Every deputy who had voted 
against the ministry was reelected, and the Liberals gained also 
fifty of the remaining seats. 

Twice defeated by the votes of even the oligarchic landlords, 
but no whit daunted, the stubborn monarch tried a coup d’etat. 
He suspended the Charter by a series of edicts, known as the 
July Ordinances. These Ordinances (1) forbade the publication 
of newspapers without royal approval, (2) dissolved the new 


END OF “ DIVINE RIGHT ” IN FRANCE 349 

legislature (which had not yet met), (3) promulgated a new law 
for elections so as to put control even more into the hands of 
reactionaries, and (4) ordered the election of another legislature. 

Metternich had foreseen this deed, and its probable result. 

He lamented the free press and the representative system in 
France ; but he warned the French ambassador that an attempt 
now to do away with these “plague spots” would ruin the dy¬ 
nasty: “The men of lead,” said he, “are on the side of the 
Constitution; Charles X should remember 1789.” 

The Ordinances were published July 26, 1830. Forty-one 
journalists of Paris at once printed a protest, declaring the 
ordinances illegal and calling upon France to resist them. 

The journalists had in mind only legal resistance, not violence; 
but there were in Paris a few old Revolutionists who were ready 
to go further, and they were powerful in a crisis because of their 
organization in secret societies. 

The same evening these radicals decided upon revolt, and 
appointed “Committees of Insurrection” for the various dis¬ 
tricts of the city. The next morning angry crowds thronged 
the streets, and threw up barricades out of paving stones. 

That night Lafayette reached Paris, to take charge of the revolt, 
and on the following morning the fighting began. 

The 28th, 29th, and 30th are the “Three Days of July.” The “ July 
On the 28th the crowd cried, “Down with the ministry!” but, Days ” 
as their blood became heated with fighting, they began to shout, 

“Down with the Bourbons!” The regular troops lacked good 
leadership, and they hated to fire on the rebel flag, — the old 
tricolor. About four thousand men were slain in the three days. 

At his palace at St. Cloud, in the suburbs, the king hunted as 
usual; and, on each evening, messengers from the sorely beset 
troops were kept waiting overnight, so as not to disturb the The end 
royal game of whist, while the scepter was slipping forever from °. f jj lv . me_ 
the old line of “divine-right” French kings. Suddenly Charles Franc? 
opened his eyes to his danger, and fled to England. Outside 
Paris , there was no fighting, hut the nation gladly accepted this 
“Second French Revolution .” 


350 


REVOLUTION IN 1830 


A limited 
monarchy 


The Charter 
amended 


Spread of 
revolution 


The “Divine-Right monarchy” in France was replaced by a 
constitutional kingship. The legislature, which Charles had 
tried to dissolve, restored the tricolor as the flag of France, 
made the Charter into a more liberal constitution, and then 
offered the crown to Louis Philippe (a distant cousin of Charles), 
on condition that he accept this amended Charter . The old Charter 
had declared that the king ruled “by the grace of God.” The 
new document added the words, “ and hy the will of the nation .” 
In actual fact, Louis XVIII had ruled hy hereditary title, and had 
given a charter to France. Louis Philippe, “King of the Bar¬ 
ricades, ruled hy election, and a constitution was imposed upon 
him. 

In this vital respect, the Second French Revolution corre¬ 
sponded to the English Revolution of 1688. In other ways it 
did not go so far. It did (1) give to the legislature the right to 
introduce bills, and (2) double the number of voters, extending 
the franchise to all who paid forty dollars in direct taxes, and 
lowering the age qualifications from forty years to thirty years. 
This still left twenty-nine men out of thirty without votes, making 
a voting body of less than 200,000 in a total population of some 
30,000,000. 

As a youth Louis Philippe had taken the side of the First Revolution 
in 1789, and had fought gallantly in the French Revolutionary armies, 
until the extremists drove him into exile. Then, instead of joining the 
royalist emigrants in their attacks on France, he had fled to England and 
America, — where he earned his living by teaching French. 

This Second French Revolution” was followed by revolts 
over all Europe. For a moment, Metternich’s system tottered. 
Belgium broke away from the king of Holland, to whom the 
Congress of Vienna had given it. Poland rose against the Tsar, 
to whom the Congress had given it. The states of Italy rose 
against Austria and the Austrian satellites, to whom the Congress 
had given them. And in Germany there were uprisings in all 

absolutist states, to demand the constitutions which the Congress 
had not given. 

The final gains, however, were not so vast as at first they 


AND REACTION IN GERMANY 


351 


seemed. Belgium did become an independent monarchy, with Gains and 
the most liberal constitution on the continent. To that country ^ sses * n 
as well as to France the Revolution brought permanent profit. 

Indeed France joined England in protecting Belgium against 

intervention so that Metternich called London and Paris 
“ two mad-houses of Europe.” Indeed, England blockaded 
the Dutch coast, and France sent a garrison to protect Antwerp, 
when the king of Holland for a time insisted that he would re¬ 
conquer Belgium — with expected aid from the Eastern powers. 

A chief gain of the 1830 revolutions was that constitutional 
France was definitely lost to the divine-right Holy Alliance. 

But Tsar Nicholas crushed the Poles, took away the con¬ 
stitution that Alexander had given them during his rule, and 
made Alexander’s “Kingdom of Poland” into a mere Russian 
province. Austria crushed the Italian revolts. And though 
four small German states secured constitutions, still the general 
despotic character of the Germanic Confederacy was not modi¬ 
fied. While Austria was busied in Italy, it is true, there had 
seemed some hope of progress for Germany; but Metternich 
soon had his hands free, and at once he set about restoring 
“order” 

Still, reaction had lost much of its vigor and confidence, 
and it was being slowly undermined by a quiet but growing 
public opinion. Metternich’s genius sufficed to keep his sys¬ 
tem standing, as long as it was not disturbed from without; 
but when the next year of Revolutions came, that system fell 
forever in Western Europe. 

That successful “Revolution of 1848” began in France, but 
it was to be the work of a new class of workingmen , —factory 
workers, — who themselves were the product of a new industrial 
system that had grown up first in England. We must go back for 
that story (see Part VI below). 


PART VI 

ENGLAND AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


The “ In¬ 
dustrial 
Revolution 


Little 
change 
in industry 
for iooo 
years before 
1750 


CHAPTER XXIII 

THE REVOLUTION IN METHODS OF WORK 

While France was giving the world her first great social and 
political revolution, with noise and blood, toward the close 
of the eighteenth century, England had been working out 
quietly an even greater revolution which was to change the 
work and daily life of the masses of men and women and chil¬ 
dren over all the world This “revolution” was at first a 
change in the ways in which certain kinds of work were done • 
so we call it the Industrial Revolution .” 

Not all the legislation of the great French Convention of 
93, nor Napoleon’s “forty victories,” nor even his code that 
would live forever,” nor the assembled statesmen at Vienna 
nor all these together, — had so much to do in deciding how 
you and I should live to-day as did this Industrial Revolution 

which are now gtudy ^ wag not wrought by k . ngS; or 

diplomats, or generals, or even by dazzling intellectual geniuses, 

Ut by humble workers busied in homely toil, puzzling day 

after day over wheels and belts and rollers and levers, seeking 
some way to save time. 

Our life and labor differs far more widely from that of our 
great-great-grandfathers in the time of the American Revolu¬ 
tion, than their life and labor differed from that of men in the 
time of Charlemagne a thousand years before. In the days of 
Vo tan e and George Washington, men raised grain, and wove 
cloth, and carried their spare products to market, in almost 
precisely the same way in which these things had been done 

352 



THE WORLD OF 1750 


353 


for four thousand or six thousand years. The discovery of 
America had added corn (maize) and the potato to the world’s 
food plants, and had enormously increased the production of 
sugar (in the West Indies) and so made its use more general. 
But in Europe itself a farmer rarely had as great a variety of 
vegetables in his garden as the ancient Egyptian or Roman 
farmer had. The English or American or French farmer with 
strenuous toil scratched the soil with a clumsy wooden plow 
not unlike those shown on Egyptian monuments six thousand 
years old. He had no other machine for horses to draw, except 
a rude harrow and a cart, almost as ancient in style. He sowed 
his grain by hand, cut it with the sickle of ancient times, and 
threshed, it out with the prehistoric flail, if he did not tread it 
out on his barn floor by cattle, as the old Egyptians did. 

Carpenters’ tools, too, did not differ much, either in number 
or style, from a set, four thousand years old, found recently in 
Crete. Blacksmiths and masons used tools as ancient in origin. 
The seventeenth century had seen the invention of sawmills 
driven by water power (like the earlier grist mills); but these 
only cut the logs into rough boards. All planing and other 
dressing of lumber was still done by hand, as was also all the 
work now done by machines in furniture factories and joiners’ 
shops. Merchandise was still carried from place to place on 
pack horses or mules, or sometimes in clumsy carts sinking to 
the axles in muddy roads ; and travel was mainly on horseback, 
though slow coaches toiled along on a few main roads, six 
horses to each vehicle. 

Household lights were still dim, ill-smelling candles or smoky 
and flaring torches. If a householder carelessly let the fire in 
his fireplace go out, he borrowed live coals from a neighbor, or 
struck sparks into tinder with flint and steel. If man or child 
had to have an arm amputated, the pain had to be borne with¬ 
out the merciful aid of anesthetics. The few cities were still 
medieval. London and Vienna boasted of lamp posts, but the 
dim light was supplied by a poorly burning oil. In Paris, on 
the main streets, the mud lay a foot deep in rainy weather. 


354 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


The revo¬ 
lution in 
English 
agriculture 


Arthur Young, in 1787, wrote of Paris, — “ Walking, which in 
London is so pleasant and clean that ladies do it every day (!), is 

here a toil and a fatigue to a man, and an impossibility to a 
well-dressed woman.” 

The first improvements came in England — in agriculture. 
Early m the eighteenth century, landlords had introduced a 
better system of “crop-rotation,” raising roots like beets and 



Fakm Tools in 1800: all shown here except the wagon. 


turnips on the field formerly left fallow (p. 67). This proved 
just as good for the ground, and the added root crops made it 
possible to feed more cattle. Besides the direct profits, the addi- 
lonal cattle furnished more manure, which enriched the soil 
and increased all crops. English gentlemen, accordingly felt 
encouraged to breed better cattle and sheep, and so to produce 


Mechanical invention in agriculture came a little later 
n 1785 the first threshing machine was invented, and enter 


















IN ENGLISH AGRICULTURE 


355 


prising gentlemen farmers” soon began to use it; but it was 
exceedingly crude. The cast-iron plow appeared about 1800. 
This was soon to work a marvelous revolution in farming — 
permitting deeper plowing and more rapid work; but for some 
time, even in America, farmers were generally prejudiced 
against it, asserting that the iron "poisoned” the ground. 
The cradle scythe a hand tool, but a vast improvement on 
the old sickle for harvesting grain — was patented in America 



Modern Plowing since 1900. The tractor, steam or gasoline, is an 
American invention. Note the width of the swath, and remember that 
the movement forward is much more rapid than any horse can plow. 
Note, too, the comfort in which the men work. 

in 1803. Drills, seeders, mowers, reapers, binders, were still 
in the future; but in 1800 the era of farm machinery was just 
at hand. 

When these changes in agricultural production were just 
beginning, there came also a change in transportation. England 
began to improve her main roads about 1750, building “turn¬ 
pikes,” with frequent barriers where tolls were collected from 
travelers to keep up repairs. A Scotch engineer, MacAdam, 


The 

revolution 
in trans¬ 
portation 






356 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


gave his name to macadamized roads.” Before the American 
Revolution began, Englishmen were boasting of the “ astounding 
change in rapidity of travel and transport of goods. 



* a TTT ( °vvnght by Underwood, and Underwood. 

A Spinning Wheel still in use in Switzerland. Its use is common also in 
rural parts of the Balkans and of Scandinavia. 


In a few years they had even better reason for such boasts. 
The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians had dug canals and 
used them to carry goods. Louis XIV and Frederick the 











IN SPINNING AND WEAVING 357 

Great had constructed a few in France and Prussia. But 
now ng and gave canals a wholly new importance in com- 
merce. The first one with a system of locks, to permit a boat 
to pass from one level to another, was built in 1761, to bring 
coa to Manchester from a mine seven miles awav. And 
before 1800, England was better supplied with canals than 
she had been with roads in 1700. The boats were “towed” 





Courtesy of the Great Falls Mfg. Company, Somersworth, 2V. H. 

Modern Spinning Machinery. 


by horses driven along a tow path. One horse could draw 
many times the weight he could draw on land over even 
the best roads, and most bulky merchandise was soon carried 
by the new water roads. 


The change that was really to revolutionize the working so- The revo- 
ciety, however, came not in farming nor in transportation, but lu * ion . in 
in manufacturing, — and first in spinning. In Queen Eliza- spinmng 
beth s time the fiber of flax or wool was drawn into thread 






358 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


Water 
power for 
hand power 


by the distaff and spindle, as among the Stone Age “Lake 
Dwellers,” four or five millenniums before. But in the seven¬ 
teenth century in England, the distaff was replaced by the 
spinning wheel, — run first by one hand, but afterward by the 
foot of the spinner. Even the wheel, however (such as may 
now and then still be found tucked away in an old attic), drew 
out only one thread at a time. To spin thread enough to weave 
into the cloth for a family’s clothing was a serious task. A 
weaver with his clumsy hand loom could weave all the thread 
that eight spinners could supply. Weavers didn’t get thread 
fast enough, and soon after 1750 they began to think about 
swifter ways to secure it. In 1761 the English Royal Society 
for the Encouragement of Manufactures offered a prize for an 
invention for swifter spinning. Three years later, in 1764 
(just before Parliament passed the Stamp Act), an English 
weaver, James Hargreaves, noticed that his wife’s spinning wheel, 
tipped over on the floor, kept whirling away for a surprising 
time. Taking a hint from this new position, he invented a 
machine where one wheel turned eight spindles, and spun eight 
threads, instead of one. Hargreaves called the new machine 
the “Jenny,” from his wife’s name. Soon it was improved so 
as to spin sixteen threads at a time. 

The thread was not satisfactory, however, for all parts of 
cloth manufacture; but in 1775 Richard Arkwright, a barber 
and peddler, devised a new sort of spinner without spindles. 
He ran his wool or cotton through a series of rollers revolving 
at different rates, to draw out the thread; and he drove these 
rollers by water power, not by hand, and so called his machine a 
“Water Frame” Four years later (1779), Samuel Crompton, an 
English weaver, ingeniously combined the best features of the 
“Jenny” and the “Water Frame” into a new machine which 
he called “ the mule ” — in honor of this mixed parentage. With 
“the mule,” one spinner could spin two hundred threads at a time. 


Crompton received $300 from the manufacturers, who 
piled up wealth from his invention! He was a shy man, 


IN SPINNING AND WEAVING 


359 


who spent his life in poverty, making his “mule” and im¬ 
proving it. When he was sixty years old, Parliament 
gave him $25,000 (in 1820), as a recognition of his services 
to England; but he spent this in attempting new inven¬ 
tions, and died extremely poor, in 1827. 

Two hundred threads seem few enough to us, acquainted 
with machinery such that a man, with one or two boys, winds 



Copyright by Underwood, and Underwood. 
A Primitive Loom in Japan To-day 


twelve thousand spools at once; but in the latter part of the 
eighteenth century, “the mule” was a revolution, and it pro¬ 
duced other revolutions. Now the weavers had too much thread; 
they could not keep up with the spinners, and it was necessary 
to improve their processes. 

The weavers still used the hand loom, older than any of the The 
records of history. Threads were first drawn out lengthwise on f evoluti ? n 

ln weaving 

a frame: this made the warp. Then the weaver drove his 

















360 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


The cotton 
gin and 
the supply 
of cotton 



shuttle by hand back and forth between those threads with the 
woof (cross threads). Edmund Cartwright, a clergyman of the 
church of England, gave his energies to discovering a better pro¬ 
cess, and in 1784 (the year after England surrendered America) 
he patented a power loom, in which the shuttle threw itself hack 


— —— -— --- - - • ■■ 

Courtesy of the Draper Company, Hopedale, Massachusetts. 

A Modern Loom. 

and forth automatically. Then the weavers could keep up easily • 
and by later improvements, before 1800, it became possible for 
one man to weave more cloth than two hundred could in 1770. 

The next need was more cotton ready to spin. Eli Whitney 
in America, met this by inventing his Cotton Gin, wherewith 
one slave could clean as much fiber from the seed as three 





STEAM AND IRON 


361 


hundred had been able to clean before. This was in 1793. 
In that year the United States exported 200,000 pounds of 
cotton. In 1800 the amount was 20,000,000 pounds, and in 
1803, 40,000,000 pounds. All this went to feed the new 
manufactures in England. 


Two minor inventions accompanied these greater ones. In¬ 
stead of bleaching cloth white slowly by air and sunshine, a 



Courtesy of the Library of Congress. 
An Early Cotton Gin. 


way was found to do it swiftly by using a chemical (chlorine). 

And instead of printing patterns on cotton cloth (calico) with 
little blocks, first a block of one color, and then one of another, 

— the patterns were soon graven on rollers which printed all 
the colors at one time as the cloth passed over them. 

The next need was a better power to drive the new machines. The steam 
Water had largely replaced hand power; but water sometimes engine 
failed, and it was not present at all in many places where it 
would have been welcome. This need was supplied by James 
Watt’s improvements on the steam engine. 





362 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


Improve¬ 
ments in 
working 
iron 


The remarkable English friar, Roger Bacon (p. 103), before 
1300, had speculated on the expansive power of steam as a 
motive power for the future, and a nobleman of Charles Us 
time is believed to have constructed a steam engine that pumped 
water; but, if he did, the invention and inventor both perished 
in the civil war between king and Parliament. 1 At all events, in 
the second half of the eighteenth century, steam engines had 
been invented that could pump water, and they were used to 
diaw water out of flooded mines. These engines, however, 
had only an ^up-and-down movement; they were clumsy and 
slow; and they wasted steam and fuel. James Watt, an instru¬ 
ment-maker, was called upon to repair a model for such an 
engine, and became interested in removing these defects. Bv 
1785, he had constructed engines that worked much more 
swiftly, economically, and powerfully, and which could transmit 
their power to wheels (and so drive machinery) by an arrange¬ 
ment of shafts and cranks. 

In 1785 steam was first used to drive spinning machinery. 
Fifteen years later, there were more steam engines in England 
than water wheels, and four had found their way to America. 

One more series of inventions completed this wonderful 
circle of the eighteenth century, where one discovery had 
so led on to another. Engines and power machines could 
be built in a satisfactory manner only from iron; but in 
1790 the manufacture of iron was still slow and costly, and 
the product was poor stuff. In that year, however, steam 
began to be used to furnish a new blowing apparatus which 
gave a steady blast of air, in place of the old bellows and 
like arrangements. This made possible more rapid and more 
perfect work in iron. Soon, too, new and better ways were 

found to change the brittle “ castings” into malleable “wrought” 
iron. 

Thus , by 1800, the “ age of steam and iron ” had begun in Eng¬ 
land, and to some degree in America. The continent of Europe 

1 George McDonald’s St. George and St. Michael tells the story. 


STEAM AND IRON 


363 


remained closed against it for some years longer, by Napoleon’s 

Continental System; but on his fall it began to win its way 
there also. 

Since prehistoric man found ways to make fire and bake pots 
and spin and weave (with spindle and loom) and extract iron 
from ore, there had been no change in man’s work that com¬ 
pared in any degree with this tremendous revolution in the 



Courtesy of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. 
A Part of the Steel Works in Pueblo, Colorado, To-day. 


latter half of the eighteenth century. The American Revolu¬ 
tion and even the greater French Revolution were dwarfed by 
the gigantic Industrial Revolution. 

Before we leave this age of invention, we must note two America 
applications of the steam engine, and also a few separate inven- ? nd n ® w 
tions, in all of which America had a large share. mventior 

Some of Watt’s engines, we said, found their way to America 
before 1800. Here, in that day, the chief need was locomotion. 








364 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


The 

steamboat 


And, since there was no time at first to build roads over our 
vast territory, we wanted first locomotion by water. Rivers 
were used to carry goods easily down the current; but some 
means to force a boat upstream was needed. Therefore, in 
America, ingenious mechanics at once sought to apply the new 
steam engine to navigation, — and produced the steamboat. 

As early as 1787, James Rumsey of Virginia ran a steamboat 
on the Potomac. At almost the same time, independently of 
this invention and of each other’s, John Fitch and Oliver Evans 



of Philadelphia did the like on the Susquehanna. But men 
with money were still too old-fashioned to have faith in a new¬ 
fangled invention, and no one of these neglected, heart-broken 
geniuses could find capital to back him. 1 Some twenty years 
later, Robert Fulton was more fortunate. He, too, met with one 
rebuff. He offered his steamboat to Napoleon as a means 
wheieby that baffled conqueror might transport his waiting 

army from Boulogne to England, in spite of English sailing ves¬ 
sels (p. 316). 


, i a u' ® spe J ially ’ had a tragic fate. A poor and unschooled carpenter, 
e lad built a ferry boat with side paddles, driven by an engine also of his 
own make, and for months he demonstrated that this boat would run up the 
Susquehanna Later, he tried to arouse interest in his new motive power in 
the West, but with no better success; and finally, in bitter poverty, he blew 
out his brains in a Kentucky inn. 















STEAMBOAT AND RAILWAY 


365 


Happily for freedom, Napoleon repulsed him disdainfully and 
stupidly as a taker — and so lost the chance to become undis¬ 
puted master of the world. And some three years later Fulton 
secured money from Chancellor Livingstone of New York. 
In 1807, amid jeers of the lookers-on, he launched The 
Clermont, furnished with an engine from England, and made 
a trial trip up the Hudson, from New York to Albany, at about 
five mdes an hour. The next year a regular line of steamboats 
plied between the two cities, and men were eagerly waiting for 
them elsewhere. 

In 1811 The Orleans was launched on the Ohio at Pittsburg, 
to voyage to the distant city for which it was named. The 



First Steam Passenger Train in America (November 12, 1831) The 
engine was modeled upon Stephenson’s “Rocket,” which, some months 
beiore, had drawn a train from Manchester to Liverpool. 


War of 1812 interrupted steamboat building, but in 1820 sixty 
such vessels plied the waters of the Ohio and Mississippi, and 
some of them were finding their way up the muddy Missouri, 
between herds of astonished buffalo. 


If steam could drive boats, why not coaches on land ? Experi- The 
ments began at once for steam locomotives. steam 

The horse tramways had been in use in England, especially 
at the mines, for many years — merely a short line of rails on 
which loaded carts could be drawn more easily than on the bare 
ground. Soon after 1800, a Cornishman, Richard Trevethick, 
used a steam engine to furnish the power for a short tramway; 
but this was merely a stationary engine of the ordinary type. 

The problem was to get a traveling engine. In 1811 John 
Stevens, in America, began twenty years of vain effort to interest 

















366 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


moneyed men in his plan for such a “ locomotive ”; but success 
was won first in England by George Stephenson , who had spent 
his poor, unschooled boyhood in helping his father tend a 
stationary pumping engine in a coal mine. 

In 1814, Stephenson completed a locomotive which was used 
to haul carts of coal on tramways from mines to a near-by canal. 



A RVESTING IN 1831. McCormick’s first successful horse-reaper. The 
self-binder was a later feature. Here the three women and one man 
are tying the gram into bundles. This photograph, based upon a “re- 

Harveste^Company! 16 ™ g ^ furniahed by the ^national 


Then, in 1825, a passenger line, twelve miles long , was opened in 
England; and in 1828, in America, the aged Charles Carroll, one 
of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, drove the 
gold spike that marked the beginning of the great Baltimore and 
Ohio Railroad. In 1833 a steam railway carried passengers from 
London to Liverpool in ten hours (a four-hour trip now), whereas 
the old stage-coach had taken sixty. The railway age had begun. 





AMERICA’S PART 


367 


The tremendous importance of the railroad, however, did not 
show fully until some twenty years later. The early rails 
were of wood, protected from wear by a covering of iron “ straps ” 
— which had an awkward way of curling up at a loosened end. 
The cars were at first merely lines of “coaches,” almost pre¬ 
cisely the old stage-coaches. The name coach still remains in 



Harvesting To-day. A Mogul Kerosene Tractor pulling two McCormick 
reapers and binders with mechanical shockers. The tractor is managed 
by the man on the front reaper. Two men take the place of six human 
beings in the previous cut and do many times as much work. 


England, and the form was kept there, and elsewhere in Europe, 
until very recently; but in America a more convenient form 
was soon introduced. Fifteen miles an hour on early roads was 
thought quite amazing. 


In many other ways, mechanical inventions began to affect 
human life soon after 1800. The rapidity with which they 
appeared may be judged partly from the records of the American 




368 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


Other 
leading 
industrial 
inventions 
— to 1850 


patent office. From 1/90 to 1812 that office registered less 
than eighty new inventions a year. From 1812 to 1820 the 
number rose to about 200 a year, and in 1830 there were 544 
new patents issued. Twenty years later the thousand mark 
was passed, and in 1860 there were five thousand. 

These inventions mostly saved time or helped to make life 
more comfortable or more attractive. A few cases only can be 
mentioned from the bewildering mass. The McCormick reaper 
(to be drawn by horses) appeared in 1831, and multiplied the 
farmer’s efficiency in the harvest field by twenty. (This released 
many men from food-production, and made more possible the 
growth of cities and of manufactures.) Planing mills created 
a new industry in woodworking. “Colt’s revolver” (1835) re¬ 
placed the one-shot pistol.” Iron stoves began to rival the 
ancient fireplace, especially for cooking. Friction matches , 
invented in England in 1827, were the first improvement on 
prehistoric methods of making fire. Illuminating gas, for 
lighting city streets, made better order possible at night, 
and helped improve public morals. In 1838 the English 
Great Western ( with *crew propeller instead of side paddles, and 
with coal to heat its boilers) established steam navigation be¬ 
tween Europe and America. The same year saw the first suc¬ 
cessful use of huge steam hammers , and of anthracite coal for 
smelting iron. In 1839 a Frenchman, Daguerre, began photog¬ 
raphy with his “ daguerrotype.” Still earlier, a French chemist 
had invented the canning of foods. In 1841 an American 
1 . rawford Long of Georgia, first demonstrated the 
value of ether as an anesthetic, — an incomparable boon to 
suffering men and women. The magnetic telegraph , invented 
in 1835 was made effective in 1844. The Howe sewing machine 

was patented in 1846; and the next year saw the first rotary 
printing press. y 

1 his book does not plan to treat American history at large 
because that subject receives better attention in separate 
volumes. But this topic of invention cannot be discussed 
without entering the American field. In 1820 a famous Eng- 


AMERICA’S PART 


369 


lish wiiter, influenced partly by the ugly feeling awakened by 
the War of 1812, had exclaimed, — “Who in the four quarters 
of the globe reads an American book, ... or drinks out of 
American glasses, ... or sleeps in American blankets?” But 
in 1841 in Parliament a member of the English cabinet con¬ 
fessed that the great majority of helpful inventions came from 
America. 

The latest phases of the Industrial Revolution — which has 
never ceased — will be noted when we reach the “Age of Elec¬ 
tricity”; but it is convenient to treat here two of the chief 
developments of the second half of the nineteenth century. 

1. The rapidly growing use of machinery called insistently 
for still better material than ordinary iron. Steel, an alloy of 
iron and carbon about ipidway in structure between cast iron 
and wrought iron, had been prized for centuries; but no way was 
known to produce it rapidly out of iron ore. The Bessemer 
process made steel available and relatively cheap. This in¬ 
vention gave a tremendous impulse to all forms of industry, 
transforming even the landscape, with our lofty “iron” [steel] 
bridges, and the exterior of our cities, with our modern “sky¬ 
scrapers.” Before the World War the consumption of steel in 
the arts of peace exceeded 40,000,000 tons a year. 

2 Coal became the chief manufacturing fuel about 1800; 
but before the close of the nineteenth century its place in many 
industries was challenged by mineral oil, or petroleum. Min¬ 
eral oil had been known in small quantities, and was used as a 
liniment (“Seneca Oil”) before 1850. The first gushing oil 
well was discovered in western Pennsylvania in 1859, and the 
use of oil for light, heat, and power began. “To strike oil” 
soon became a byword for success — equivalent to a “ ship 
come home” in the days of primitive commerce. In 1872 pe¬ 
troleum ranked in American exports next to wheat, cotton, and 
meat. To-day America uses her total production, and looks 
longingly toward oil fields in Mexico, as England does toward 
Mesopotamia’s, and Russia toward Roumanians. 


Rapid 
increase of 
wealth 


Gains and 
losses to 
the workers 


CHAPTER XXIV 

THE REVOLUTION IN THE WORKERS’ LIVES 

• 

The introduction of machinery and of steam power produced 
at once (by 1800) tremendous changes in the lives of all men, 
but especially of workingmen. With the new machinery, labor 
produced much more wealth. Robert Owen, a cloth manufac¬ 
turer at New Lanark in Scotland, said in 1815 that his two 
thousand operatives produced more than all the workmen in 
Scotland forty years before. 1 

This change ought to have been purely good. It should 
have meant a gain for all the world. Especially it should 
have meant more comfort and more leisure for the workers. 
In practice, it meant something very different. Too large a 
share of the new wealth went to a new class of capitalists. 
This was not the fault of Hargreaves, Crompton, Watt, and their 
fellows : the fault lay in human society. 

Part of the increased wealth did go at last, and indirectly, to 
the common gain in lower prices. Every one, the workmen 
included, can buy cloth or hardware cheaper than before the In¬ 
dustrial Revolution began. This is a vast gain. It is the thing 
about the Revolution which justifies a vast deal of the suffer¬ 
ing that it has caused. It makes possible more life and some 
better life. <• 

But the revolution also resulted directly in much lower life for 
just those who, we should have supposed, would be the first bene¬ 
fited. This was particularly true in the beginning. To under¬ 
stand this we must look once more at the condition of work¬ 
men before the invention of machinery. 

1 Note that wealth is not money. It is any desirable thing produced or 
obtained by labor. 


370 


THE OLD DOMESTIC SYSTEM 


371 


Under the “domestic system” (p. 185) all manufactures 
had been handmade (as the word “manufacture” signifies). 
Hours of labor were long and profits were small, because there 
was little surplus wealth to divide. But workmen worked in 
their own homes, under reasonably wholesome conditions. 
Their labor was varied. They owned their own tools. They 
had considerable command over their hours of toil. Their 
condition resembled that of the farmer of to-day more than that 
of the modern factory worker. 

Thus, in England and America especially, the artisan drew 
part of his support from the plot of ground about his cottage. 
Even the iron workers of Sheffield (famous for its cutlery since 
1400) lived in little homes surrounded each by its garden where 
the workman could spend a dull season profitably. Defoe, the 
author of Robinson Crusoe, describes a like condition which he 
saw among the weavers in Yorkshire, about 1725: 

“The land was divided into small inclosures of from two acres to six or 
seven acres each, seldom more, every three or four pieces having a house 
belonging to them; hardly a house standing out of speaking distance 
from another. ... At every considerable house there was a manu¬ 
factory. Every clothier keeps one horse at least to carry his manu¬ 
factures to market, and every one generally keeps a cow or two, or more, 
for his family. . . . The houses are full of lusty fellows, some at their 
dye vat, some at their looms, others dressing the cloth; the women and 
children carding or spinning, all being employed from the youngest to 
the eldest. ” 

But hand workmen could not match tireless iron machines 
driven by steam. They could not produce enough cloth — 
at the lower prices at which it was sold after 1800 — to support 
themselves even with the aid of their garden spots. The 
Industrial Revolution came swiftly — upturning the whole 
system of manufacturing before a hale man turned into an old 
one. The hand weavers were people slow to accept change. 
Many of them could not understand the drift of the times. 
They had gained, in generation after generation, a skill of which 
they were proud and which had made them envied by other 
workmen. They did not see how a new contrivance of wood and 


Workmen 
under 
the old 
“ Domestic 
System ” 


The tragedy 
of sudden 
change 


372 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


The new 

Factory 

system 


The new 
“ capital¬ 
ist ” 


iron could make that painfully gained skill of hand a worthless 
thing and cast them down into the position of wholly unskilled 
workers. Great numbers of the old weavers kept up the losing 
fight, for their lifetime, under harsher and harsher conditions; 1 
and, from time to time, such laborers rose in ignorant but 
natural riots to smash machinery and burn factories. 

This sort of tragedy has been repeated time after time with 
millions of workers, as the Industrial Revolution (which is 
still in progress) has replaced one process by a quicker one. 
It happened not long ago, when the linotype replaced hand 
typesetting. Masses of workers have paid for every gain to 
the world by terrible personal loss that destroyed families and 
ruined lives. Society, which profits so splendidly, has not yet 
learned how to insure its workers against this unfair loss. But, 
m 1800, the thing was new. There was no accident insurance 
or old-age insurance or pension system, such as many countries 
are now coming to have; and the class of workmen who were 
ruined made a larger part of the total population than have ever 
again been so affected at one time. 

Still the most serious evils in 1800 fell not upon the workmen, 
who kept up this hopeless fight against steam and machinery, 
but upon the hundreds of thousands of workmen who accepted 
the change and tried to work under it. 

The new machinery was costly. Workmen could not own it 
as they had owned their old tools. Nor did they know how to 
combine to own it in groups. It all passed into the hands of 
wealthy men, who hired workers (“operatives”) to “operate” 
it This marks the beginning of a new organization of labor. 

I he old slave system gave way to serfdom in agriculture and 
to a gild organization in manufactures. Gilds gave way to the 
domestic system. And now the domestic system gave way to the 
present Capitalist system, or Wage system, or Factory system. 

I he capitalist manufacturer was a new figure in European 

* ' C ', PP ' 94 ’ 10 °)> appearing first in England. There, by 
00, the capitalists ranked alongside the country gentlemen 

1 George Eliot’s Silas Marner is the story of such a weaver. 


THE NEW CAPITALISTS 


373 


and the merchant princes as the “upper” middle class, just 
below the titled nobility in social standing and often superior 
to them in wealth. The appearance of this new figure was in 
many ways a gain to society; but there was also a bad side. 

The capitalist manufacturer was not himself a workman, like 
the old “master” in the gilds or in the domestic system. He 
was only an “employer.” He erected great buildings called 
factories, filled them with costly machines, bought the necessary 
“raw material” (cotton, wool, or iron, as the case might be), 
and paid wages. 

And if the capitalist was a new figure in middle-class society, 
the capitalless and landless worker was a much more significant 
new figure in the “lower classes.” Unlike the capitalist, he 
was a helpless one. He now furnished nothing but his hands. 
Great numbers of men wanted work; and, moreover, much of 
the work on the new machinery could be done by women and 
children — especially in all cloth manufactures, where the 
work consisted largely in turning a lever, or tying broken threads, 
or cleaning machinery. Until the operatives learned how to 
combine, so as to bargain collectively, the capitalist could fix 
wages and hours and conditions as he pleased. 

Thus the new manufacturing society was made up of two 
distinct and hostile classes, kinder the gild and domestic 
systems, apprentices and journeymen had expected to rise, 
sooner or later, to be “masters”; and at all times they lived 
on terms of constant intercourse with their masters, who 
worked side by side with them, shared their hardships, and 
had a sort of fatherly guardianship over them. Under the 
new system, a particularly enterprising and fortunate workman 
might now and then rise into the capitalist class (as a villein 
had now and then become a noble in old days); but on the 
whole, the line was drawn as distinctly, in Europe, 1 between 
soft-handed capitalist and hard-handed workman in 1800, as 
between armored noble and stooped peasant in 1200. 

1 In America, the relative scarcity of labor, and the presence of free land, 
made this cleavage less complete for many years more. 


The new 
“ pro¬ 
letariat ” 


Cleavage 

between 

classes 


374 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


Change in 
the homes 
of the 
workers 


The rise 
of cities 


Moreover, the capitalist had no personal contact with his 
workmen. He employed not three or four, living in his own 
family, but hundreds or thousands. He never saw them, to 
know them, outside the factory, and he did not even know their 
names except on the payroll. There was no chance for real 
sympathy or understanding between him and his "hands.” 

These changes, so far noted, are more or less permanent 
icsults of the capitalist system. We still have them in our 
society. But in 1800, in England, there was another result more 
immediately disastrous to the worker. He was compelled to 
change his whole manner of life for the worse. He must reach 
the factory within a few minutes after the first whistle blew, 
about sunrise, and stay there until sunset or dusk. So the 
capitalist built long blocks of ugly tenements near his factory, 
to rent; and the workmen moved from their rural village homes, 
with garden spots and fresh air and varied industry, into these 
crowded city quarters. 

The factory system produced cities with marvelous rapidity. 
In 1 { o0 England was still a rural country, with only four or 
five towns that had more than 5000 people. In 1801 cities 
had leaped into life everywhere. More than 100 towns counted 
5000 people. And in 1891, the number of such towns was 622. 
In 1700 the entire population of England and Wales (not in¬ 
cluding Scotland or Ireland) was somewhere between four and 
five millions. In 1801, when the first accurate census was taken, 
it was 8,893,000. Most of the increase had come in the last 
half of the century, and practically all of it had come in cities. 
During the next half-century, population doubled again, rising 
to 17,928,000 in 1851; and in the second half of the same century 
it very nearly doubled once more (32,526,000 in 1901). 

The factory system has helped to produce rapid growth of 
population and of cities in all civilized lands; but nowhere else 
(except in the United States, where immigration has added 
millions) has the growth been so enormous as in England; and in 
no other country did rapid growth begin until England had faced 
and begun to solve the new problems. 


THE LONG DAY 


375 


For the growth of cities, together with the factory system, 
did give lise to wholly new problems. For a time no one saw 
them clearly. The employers, most directly responsible, felt 
no responsibility, and were engaged in an exciting race for 
wealth. The new cities grew up without water supply, or drain¬ 
age, or garbage-collection. Science had not learned how to 
care for these needs properly, and law had not begun to wrestle 
with them. The masses of factory workers and their families 
dwelt in den-like garrets and cellars — a family stuffed in¬ 
decently into a squalid unwholesome room or two — bordering 
on pestilential allq^ 3 , in perpetual filth and disease and misery 
and vice. In 183/ one tenth of the people of the great city 
of Manchester lived in cellars. The employment of women 
in the factory destroyed the home for a large part of the nation. 1 

Carpenters and masons commonly worked from sunrise to 
sunset — or even from dawn to dark — just as farm laborers 
often do still. Such long hours for toil were terribly hard: 
but they could be endured when spent in fresh air, amid out¬ 
door scenes, in interesting and varied activity. But this long 
labor day was now carried into the factory. There it was 
unendurable and ruinous, because of foul air, poor light, nerve- 
racking noise of machinery, the more monotonous character 
of factory labor — the workman spending his day in repeating 
over and over one simple set of motions, — and because there it 
crushed women and children. 

This was true even in America, when factories grew up here 
after 1815. Many years ago, Professor Ely of Wisconsin 
University wrote {Labor Movement in America, 49): — “The 
length of actual labor [in 1832] in the Eagle Mill at Griswold 
[Connecticut] was fifteen hours and ten minutes. The regula¬ 
tions at Paterson, New Jersey, required women and children 
to be at work at half-past four in the morning. . . . Opera¬ 
tives were taxed by the manufacturers for the support of 
churches. . . . Women and children were urged on by the use 

1 Women had done most of the spinning under the old domestic system; 
but they had done it then at odd spells, as part of the household work. 


And their 
new prob¬ 
lems 


Long hours 
and mo¬ 
notonous 
labor 


Illustrations 

from 

America in 
1830 


376 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


of the rawhide.” Hope Factory (Rhode Island) rang its first 
bell ten minutes before the “break of day” (sunrise); the 
second bell, ten minutes later; and in five minutes more the 
gates were locked upon tardy comers. Labor lasted in summer 
till eight at night; and a committee of laborers claimed that by 
keeping the factory clock always slow, the employer lengthened 
this horrible labor-day by twenty or twenty-five minutes more. 


Mastc/L /*£, Zo'j 
jifduJ, Zo&toAprJcfe 

Jtf&y, TuZy 

A-uy. /&& /sK 

Aip & S’//. 

Oct.loU 

lifoD. OAuf JDec. 



rfc/TAp 

Ru#- 

Sj/Uy 

Ci .* 

C 

4SS 

15<*uUit 

-SAt~ Lc> « 

AcwlL, 

73o 

7. 

6.3 o 

6‘3o 

7. 

7. So 

S./d 

7Xo 

7/o 

7/o 

7.4 o 

S/0 

/Z.30 

/f Jo 

a. 

n. 

71. 

/±. 

UJo 

/2.Jo 

/JO 

/JO 

/ZAO 

/ZSS 

/ZSf 

/L.SS 
/. /Q 

I/O 

7 

7. 

Subset 

6.4f 

i 



Facsimile of Time Card of Machine Shop 
1848. From Tarbell’s “Golden Rule in 
Magazine for April, 1915. 


in Providence, R. I., for 
Business” in the American 


The only respite from work during the day was twenty-five 
minutes for breakfast and as much more for dinner — both meals 
eaten inside the walls from cold lunches brought by the workers. 

These factories were not exceptions: they were typical 
A Convention of New England Mechanics at Boston in 1832 
declared that two fifths of all persons employed in American 
factories were children, whose day of toil averaged fourteen 
hours, and who had no chance whatever for schooling. 




















AND THE CHILDREN 


377 


In England, conditions were at first worse than this. Parish 
authorities had power to take children from pauper families 
and apprentice them to employers; and dissolute parents some¬ 
times sold their children into service by written contracts. 
In the years just before 1800, gangs of helpless little ones 
from six and seven years upwards, secured in this way by 
greedy contractors, were auctioiied off, thousands at a time, to 
great factories, where their life was a ghastly slavery. They 
received no wages. They were clothed in rags. They had 
too little food, and only of the coarsest sort. Often they ate 
standing at their work, while the machinery was in motion. 
They were driven to toil sometimes sixteen hours a day, in 
some places by inhuman tortures. They had no holiday except 
Sunday; and their few hours for sleep were spent in dirty 
beds from which other relays of little workers had just been 
turned out. Schooling or play there was none; and the poor 
waifs grew up — girls as well as boys — if they lived at all, 
amid shocking and brutal immorality. When one batch of 
such labor had been used up, another was ready at little cost; 
and employers showed a disregard for the physical well-being of 
these “white slaves,” such as no prudent negro-driver could ever 
afford toward his more costly black chattels. 

In 1800 a terrible epidemic among children in factory districts 
aroused public attention; and Parliament “reduced” the hours 
of labor for children-apprentices to twelve a day. The apprentice 
system, however, was abolished soon after, and the new law did 
not apply to the remaining child-operatives who were supposed 
to be looked after by their parents. In 1819 and in 1831 laws 
were passed to shorten hours for these children also, but they 
were not enforced; and the old conditions continued with little 
gain until after political reforms which we are soon to study. 


Child 
slavery in 
England 


The begin- 
nings of 
reform 


Lord Ashley (Earl of Shaftesbury), whose championship helped finally 
to remedy these evils, spoke with great emotion forty years later (1873) 
of how he used to stand at the factory gates and watch the children come 
out, — “sad, dejected, cadaverous creatures/’ among whom “the crip¬ 
pled and distorted forms might be counted by hundreds.” The poet 


378 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


“ In- 

closures ” 
in rural 
England 


Southey in 1833 declared of the factory system that the “slave trade is 
mercy compared with it.” And the piteous story called forth a pas¬ 
sionate protest from the heart of England’s woman poet against this 

hideous phase of English civilization (Mrs. Browning’s Cry of the Chil¬ 
dren) : — 

For oh, say the children, ‘we are weary, 

And we can not run or leap. 

If we cared for any meadows, it were merely 
To drop down in them and sleep. . . 

How long, they say, ‘how long, O cruel nation, 

Will you stand to move the world on a child’s heart_ 

Stifle down with a mailed heel its palpitation, 

And tread onward to your throne amid the mart! 

Our blood splashes upward, O gold-heaper, 

And our purple shows your path. 

But the child s sob in the silence curses deeper 
Than the strong man in his wrath.’” 

Another unhappy change during this same period destroyed 
the yeomen of rural England. In America one reason why fac¬ 
tory workers were so at the mercy of employers was that in 
1800 they could no longer find “free land,” as workers could do 
in colonial times. Good farming land near the Eastern cities 
was all taken up; and the remote land in the West had not yet 

been opened by the government to settlement in small lots 
so that poor men could get hold of it. 

But in England things were worse. There it was not a 
matter of the absence of just land-laws, but the presence of 
unjust laws. The new profits in farming (p. 354) made land¬ 
lords eager for more land. They controlled Parliament? 
and that body passed law after law, after 1760, inclosing the 

commons for the benefit, not of the common good, but of their 
class. 

These new inclosures were outwardly more decent than those 
of the seventeenth century. Pains were taken to “compensate” 
every villager for the share he lost in the village commons. 
But, whatever the intention of the law, the compensation proved 
ridiculously inadequate. Usually it was in the form of a little 
cash, which the peasant spent without any lasting improvement 


ENGLAND A LANDLORD’S COUNTRY 


379 


in his condition. A rhyme of the day expresses the feeling of 
the poor at this renewal of the ancient inclosure movement: — 

“The law locks up the man or woman 
Who steals the goose from off the common; 

But leaves the greater villain loose 
Who steals the common from the goose.” 

And Goldsmith’s pathetic “Deserted Village” pictures the 
result and gives its stern warning: 

“Ill fares the land, to hastening woes a prey, 

Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.” 

The peasant farmers, having lost their old pasture land by 
these inclosures, could no longer maintain themselves against 
the competition of the privileged landlord, who also alone had 
money to buy the new machinery coming into use. Small 
farmers were compelled to sell out; while the merchants and 
new manufacturing capitalists were eager to buy, both because 
of the new profits in agriculture and because social position 
and political power in England in that day rested on ownership 
of land. 

In 1700, in spite of the older inclosure movement of the A landlord 
sixteenth century, England had still some 400,000 peasant countr y 
farmers. These with their families made nearly half the total 
population. But by 1800, though population had doubled 
(p. 374), this class of independent small farmers had disappeared 
and rural England was merely a country of great landlords. 

The dispossessed yeomanry drifted to the new factory towns 
to swell the unhappy class there already described, and to 
make its condition worse by increasing the competition for 
work. Or they remained to till the landlord’s land, living on 
his estate as “ cottagers,” subject to removal at his order. 

Since this change, until very recently, the classes connected 
with the land in England have been three, — landlords, tenant- 
farmers, and laborers. The first class comprised a few thousand 
gentry and nobles. Each such proprietor divided his estate 


380 


THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 


into “farms,” of from a hundred to three hundred acres, and 
leased them out to men with a little capital, who are known as 
farmers.” This second class worked the land directly, with 
the aid of the third class, who had no land of their own but 
who labored for day-wages. 

The landlords as a rule prided themselves upon keeping up 
their estates. They introduced costly machinery and improved 
methods of agriculture, more rapidly than small proprietors 
could, and they furnished some of the money necessary to put 
farms and buildings into good condition. Their own stately 
homes, too, encompassed by rare old parks, gave a beauty 
to rural England such as no other country knew. (During 
the World War, these glorious oaks have been cut to furnish 
lumber for England; and much of this beauty has been lost ) 
The farmers, compared with the farm-laborers, were an aristo¬ 
cratic and prosperous class; but, of course, they had always been 
largely influenced by their landlords. And they did not own 
tieir land. Peasants became free in England some centuries 
sooner than in France or Germany; but in no other European 
country have the peasants so completely ceased to be owners 
of the soil as in modern England. In 1876 a parliamentary 
inquiry found only a quarter of a million (262,886) land- 
owners with more than an acre apiece. France, with about 

the same population, had more than twenty times as many 
landowners. 

E x eeci3e. — Note the transitions in rural labor in England : (1) serf 
and v iUem labor to about 1350, and then a decay of that system until it 
isappears about 1450; (2) inclosures (for sheep farming), driving a 
arge part of the peasantry from the soil, 1450-1600; then, after a pros 

17 To U 18 P 30 n ; R (3) *7 r T° d 0f inCl0SUreS fOT ^ grain ing, 

noted on pp. 476^4770 ? ‘° reSt ° re ^ P6aSantry to the soil be 

1600'“‘the 1 h * ransit ‘ ons in manufacturing: the gild system to about 

The o r 77 ? T T 1 160(W760 ; the system of to-day. 

e Industrial Revolution” applies especially to the change in 

fromf76oTf820 Ue Th^ “ ? and steam > in the Pe™d 

om 1760 to 1820. The Agricultural Revolution helped on the Indus¬ 
trial Revolution by furnishing workmen for the new factories. 


CHAPTER XXV 


THE REVOLUTION IN IDEAS ABOUT GOVERNMENT 


A group of scholars and writers soon put into form the new 
ideas about carrying on industry and producing wealth. They 
called their new science Political Economy. It was founded by 
Adam Smith, about the beginning of the American Revolu¬ 
tion. Its fundamental principle then was that government must 
keep hands off, unless called in as a policeman to keep order. 
“Laws” of “supply and demand,” it taught, were “natural 
laws” among men (as gravitation was in the physical universe) 
and could not be meddled with, except to do harm. Supply 
and demand must be left absolute to determine prices, quality 
of goods, wages, and conditions of employment. This would 
secure the “greatest happiness of the greatest number.” 

This became known as the “Manchester doctrine ,” because it 
was so universal among manufacturers in that leading center 
of manufactures. It is also called by a French name, — Laissez 
faire (“let alone,” or “let it go”). English merchants ac¬ 
cepted it no less readily than manufacturers, in their hatred of 
the old tariffs which hampered their trade; and it soon became 
almost a religion to the town middle class. The prosperous 
capitalist class resented all thought of interference in their 
business by government. Such interference in past times, they 
easily proved, had been foolish and harmful, even when best 
intended, and usually it had been intended to benefit a specially 
privileged few, at the cost of the many. 

It is easy now to see that this new doctrine suited the strong, 
but that it was totally unchristian in its disregard of the weak. 
Quite as much as any feudal system, it produced happiness 
for a few and misery for the greatest number. The horrible 

381 


The “Let 
alone ” 
idea of 
govern¬ 
ment 


The 

Socialist 

idea 


382 


GROWTH OF SOCIALISM 


Early 

Socialists 


conditions of the factory towns (p. 375) were its first fruits. 
Many thinkers began to call this political economy a “dismal 
science/’ and, in search of a cure for social ills, to swing over to 
some form of what is now called Socialism. 

The first “Socialists” were very unscientific in their ideas, 
but they were moved by a deep love for suffering humanity. 

hey believed that men by laws or by mutual arrangements 
could set up a society of common goods and brotherly love, — 
such as Sir Thomas More had pictured in Utopia. Three names 
among these early Socialists deserve mention. 

Saint-Simon, a French noble, who had aided America in the 
Revolution, taught in his New Christianity that government 
ought to manage all industry and secure to each worker a 
reward suitable to his service. 

Fourier also was a Frenchman. He thought government 
unable to manage industry on such a scale as Saint-Simon ad¬ 
vocated Instead, he urged that groups of workmen (and their 
families) should organize in little “phalanxes” of two thou- 
n members each, each phalanx to own its own capital 
and to divide products in nearly equal parts between the capi¬ 
tal, labor, and management. Horace Greeley, in America, was 

i 6e ? 7 1 , n ^ ereSted ln thls P lan >' and a number of New Eng¬ 
landers (Emerson and Hawthorne among them) tried such an 
experiment at Brook Farm in 1841. 

Robert Owen (p. 370) was a wealthy English manufacturer. 
His ideas for reform were much like Fourier’s; and he used 
. 1S wei J lth t° establish a number of such cooperative colonies 
m England and in America - as at New Harmony, Indiana. 

. es all failed finally; but meantime he had given an 

impulse to cooperative societies for buying and selling goods 
which ever since have accomplished great good; and his influ¬ 
ence did much to spread faith in human brotherhood and to 

arouse the men who were to lead in social reforms in the next 
generation. 

Modern Socialists look back on all these early attempts as 
well-meant efforts of dreamers, and trace their present doctrine 


KARL MARX 


383 


to Karl Marx. Marx was born in 1818 in Germany. He 
attended the University of Berlin, and was intended by his 
family for a University professor; but his radical ideas kept 
him from obtaining such a position. He began to publish 
his works on Socialism about 1847. Germany and then France 
drove him away, as a dangerous disturber of order; and he 
spent the last forty years of his life (died 1883) in England, 
where, perhaps even more than in America, men of all creeds 
and opinions have found full freedom of speech. 

Marx threw aside the idea that benevolent persons could 
introduce a new era of cooperation by agreement. He be¬ 
lieved, however, that a new cooperative organization of society 
was going to succeed the present individualistic organization, 
as inevitably as that had followed the gild and slave organiza¬ 
tion, — not by humanitarian legislation, but through tenden¬ 
cies in human development that could not be controlled. All 
history, he said, had been the story of class struggles. Ancient 
society was a contest between master and slave; medieval 
society, between lord and serf; present society, between capital¬ 
ist and workers. The workers, he was sure, will win, when 
they learn to unite, by transferring ownership of all machinery 
(all “means of production”) to the nation as a whole, instead 
of leaving it and its profits in the hands of a few. He fore¬ 
told the recent concentration of wealth and industry in great 
combines, and said that such combination would be a step 
toward the cooperative state, since it would make it easier for 
the masses to seize the “means of production.” 

In the name of “democracy and human welfare,” Marx 
called to the working class of all lands to unite. “You have 
nothing to lose but your chains,” he said. “Unite, and make 
the world your own,” so as to inaugurate a golden future, 
“when all shall work, but none have to work too long or too 
hard. Then no one will grow rich at the expense of others, 
but each may receive honorable reward for any service that he 
renders society . . . and emancipated humankind will live 
as one vast family, in brotherly love.” 


Modern 

Socialism 


384 


THE WEAKNESS OF SOCIALISM 


Labor, the Socialist teaches, is the source of all wealth, — 
food, clothing, houses, machinery, books, pictures, railroads. 
Labor, he insists, produced the capital which now controls 
further production and so controls labor. He would have 
labor instead own all capital — that is, all wealth employed 
in pioducing more wealth. This does not mean that the 
Socialists wish to divide property, or to keep individuals after¬ 
ward from owning houses, libraries, carriages, jewels, clothing, 
of their own. They do not wish to abolish private ownership 
of those things which we use for ourselves, but only of those 
things which we use to produce more wealth. 

Noi do Socialists usually wish to pay all men alike for their 
work. They would have the nation own the property now owned 
mainly by great trusts and corporations, and then pay salaries and 
wages, as corporations now do — except that as the nation would 
not try to keep most of the profits, there would be more for wages. 
And as all would work, no one would have to work so long. 

Unfortunately a large division of Socialists have abandoned 
the ballot in favor of “direct action.” By this they do not mean, 
most of them, bombs or bullets, but they do mean industrial com¬ 
pulsion of society through “ general strikes.” To succeed in this, 
they aim first to organize all workers in each great industry, un¬ 
skilled as well as skilled, into “one big union.” This program 
originated with the French “Syndicalists” a few years ago and 
has been adopted by the “ I. W. W. ” in America. Society 
tends, naturally, to meet these threats of compulsion with harsh 
repression. However, the world congress of Socialists in 1920 
(the “Second International”) distinctly repudiated these 
methods and clearly affirmed its faith in persuasion and the ballot. 

Students who pay any attention to Socialism admit that its 
ideals are noble and attractive, and that the evils in present 
society are real and cruel. But the great majority do not 
believe that the Socialist program would work as its advocates 
teach; and they hope to lessen the ills of society without sur¬ 
rendering private enterprise and industrial initiative to any 
such degree as the Socialists think necessary. 


PART VII 

CONTINENTAL EUROPE, 1848-1871 


CHAPTER XXVI 

THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 

I. IN FRANCE 

In France the divine-right Bourbon monarchy, we have seen, 
gave way in 1830 to a constitutional Orleans monarchy . Louis 
Philippe (p. 350) liked to be called “the Citizen King/’ He 
walked the streets in the dress of a prosperous shopkeeper, a 
green cotton umbrella under his arm, chatting cordially with 
passers-by, and he sent his children to the public schools. 
This was perfectly sincere conduct. He had little understanding, 
however, of the needs of France, or of the feelings of the masses 
below the shop-keeping class. For eighteen years (1830-1848) 
the favor of the middle class upheld his throne. Only the rich¬ 
est citizens had any share in political power (p. 350); but the 
whole middle class held military power, since it was organized 
in the armed and trained National Guards — to which no work¬ 
ingmen were admitted. 

In the legislature there were two main parties. Thiers 
(p. 348) led the more liberal one, which wished the monarchy 
to be a figurehead, as in England; Guizot (p. 348), the con¬ 
servative leader, wanted to leave the king the real executive, 
and to resist all further liberalizing of the government. Both 
Guizot and Thiers were famous historians. 

From 1840 to 1848, Guizot was in control as the chief minister. 
France was undergoing rapid industrial growth, and needed 
tranquillity and reforms. Guizot gave it tranquillity. His 

385 


The 

middle- 

class 

monarchy 


Guizot’s 
policy of 
stagnation, 
1840-1848 




386 


THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 


“ Place¬ 
men ”: 
organized 
corruption 


Narrow 

electorate 


ministry was the most stable that France had known since the 
days of Napoleon. But, in his desire for tranquillity, he ig¬ 
nored the other great need, and opposed all reform. Proposals 
to reduce the enormous salt tax, to extend education, to re¬ 
form the outgrown postal system, to improve the prisons, to 
care for youthful criminals, were alike suppressed. He kept 
France not so much tranquil as stagnant. 

Thus, after a time, the bright, brainy public men were nearly 
all driven into opposition; and even the interests of the middle 
class suffered. In 1842 Lamartine, another brilliant historian- 
statesman, attacked Guizot with a bitter speech in the legisla¬ 
ture, declaring him so "inert” and "immovable,” that "a post 
would answer as well all purposes of government.” 

But Guizot could not be overthrown by lawful means. The 
franchise was too narrow; and he had organized the vast 
patronage of the government for public corruption too skill¬ 
fully. In America the constitution forbids the President to 
appoint Congressmen to paid offices, such as postmasters or 
customhouse collectors. But in France it was the regular 
practice to make members of the legislature "placemen” of 
this sort, as in England a century earlier (p. 214). This evil 
was the greater, since in France the government appointed not 
only national officials as with us, but also all local officers, like 

our county and State officials and city mayors and chiefs of 
police. 

Less than 200,000 men could vote (p. 350), and the govern¬ 
ment had 300,000 offices to buy voters with. Then when an 
election was over, Guizot strengthened his majority in the legisla¬ 
ture by appointing members to profitable offices, or by giving 
them lucrative business contracts from the government. At 
one time, half the legislature held considerable revenues at 
Guizots will, and gave their votes at his nod. Personally, 

uizot was incorruptible and rather austere; but he ruled bv 
organizing corruption. 

n W ^ ° f P0Utical reform Thiers’ party asked only 

( ) o orbid the appointment of members of the legislature 


IN FRANCE 


387 


to salaried offices, and (2) to widen the franchise so that one man 
out of twenty could vote. Guizot smothered both proposals. 
France already had too many voters, he declared; ‘not more 
than 100,000 men in the country were capable of voting with 
good judgment/ 

Finally the Liberals began to appeal to that vast part of the 
nation that had no vote. They planned a series of mass meet¬ 
ings and public demonstrations, to bring public opinion to bear 
on the legislature. According to American or English ideas, 
the proceeding was perfectly proper. But the French govern¬ 
ment forbade it — and brought on a revolution. 

This “Revolution of 1848 teas the work of the class of factory 
workers that had been growing up, almost unnoticed by political 
leaders of either party. Until 1825, when the Industrial Revo¬ 
lution was fairly complete in England, it had not begun in 
France. Cloth manufactures there were still carried on under 
the “Domestic system.’’ But in the next ten years, 5000 power- 
looms were installed in factories; and in ten years more, the 
number had grown to 30,000. In 1815 there was only one 
steam engine in the country, aside from a dozen or so used to 
pump water; but in 1830 there were 625, and in 1850 there 
were more than 5000. The first French railway of importance 
was opened in 1843. 

Late as all this was, the Industrial Revolution came in 
France sooner than in any other country of the continent. 
And it came soon enough so that, by 1848, a large factory- 
population had grown up in cities like Bordeaux, Lyons, Tou¬ 
louse, and Paris. Moreover, more than the working class 
then in any other land, the alert, intellectually nimble French 
workingmen of the towns were influenced by the new teachings 
of Socialism. Their chief spokesman was Louis Blanc, an 
ardent young editor, who preached especially “the right to 
work” Every man, he urged, had a right to employment. 
To insure that right, he wished the nation to establish work¬ 
shops in different trades and give employment in them to all 
who wished it and who could not get it elsewhere. In the 


The Liberals 
try to appeal 
to public 
opinion 


The new 
“ Social¬ 
ists ” 
among the 
workmen of 
Paris 


388 


THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 


The 

“ February 
Days ” 


The last 
of the 
Capetians 


The 

Provisional 

Government 

of 1848 


end, according to his plan, the workers would manage the 
workshops. 

Blanc was an unselfish, high-minded man, moved by deep 
pity for the suffering masses; and his proposals were urged with 
moderation of word and style. But among his followers there 
were a few crack-brained enthusiasts, some criminally selfish 
adventurers, and many ignorant men easily incited to violence. 
Large numbers of the workingmen of Paris, in particular, had 
adopted phrases, not only about the “ right to work/’ but also 
about “ the crime of private property/’ as a sort of religious 
creed. This class was first revealed as a political power in 
the revolution that followed. 

In 1848 the Liberals appointed a monster political demon¬ 
stration m Paris for February 22 — choosing that day in 
honor of the American celebration. At the last moment the 
government forbade the meeting. The leaders obeyed and 
stayed away; but the streets were filled all day with angry, 
disappointed crowds, shouting “Down with Guizot!” The 
National Guards, when called out to disperse the mob, them¬ 
selves took up the cry. The next day Guizot resigned. 

Peace seemed restored; but that night a collision occurred 
between some troops and the mob; and the Socialists and 
Radicals seized the chance to rouse the masses against the 
monarchy. The bodies of a few slain men were paraded 
through the poorer quarters of the city in carts, while fervid 
orators called the people to rise against a monarchy that mas¬ 
sacred French citizens. By the morning of the 24th, the streets 
bristled with barricades and the mob was marching on the 
Tuilenes. Louis Philippe fled to England, disguised as a “Mr. 
Smith. His government had lost the support of the middle 
classes, and it collapsed. “The February Days” saw the end 
of the Capetian ^monarchy in France. 

The Chamber of Deputies was about to proclaim the infant 
grandson of Louis Philippe as king, when the room was invaded 
by a howling mob, flourishing muskets and butcher-knives 
and calling tor a republic. In the midst of this tumult the 


LAMARTINE 389 

few deputies who kept their seats hastily appointed a “Pro¬ 
visional Government.” 

This body was at once escorted by the mob to the Hotel de 
Ville (a sort of town hall), where it found another provisional 
government already set up by the Radicals and Socialists. 

By a compromise, some of this latter body were incorporated 
in the first. The Provisional Government was now made up 
of three elements : Lamartine , the poet-historian, represented 
the Moderate Republicans; Ledru-Rollin was the representa¬ 
tive of the Radical Republicans (“the Reds”), who wished to 
return to the “Terror” of 1793; and Louis Blanc represented 
the Socialists. On the whole, Lamartine proved to be the 
guiding force. 

The difficulties before the government were tremendous. 

For sixty hours it was in the presence of an infuriated and 
drunken mob. A crowd of 100,000 armed men was packed 
into the streets about the Hotel de Ville, and delegations from 
it repeatedly forced their way into the building to make wild 
demands upon the “government.” That government must at 
once disperse this seething multitude, avert plunder and mas¬ 
sacre, clear away barricades, bury the dead and care for the 
wounded, and supply food for the great city wherein all ordi¬ 
nary business had ceased. All this, too, had to be accomplished 
without any police assistance. 

Time after time, during the sixty hours’ session, was Lamar- Lamartine 
tine called from the room to check invasions by new bands of 
revolutionists. Said the spokesman of one of the bands : “We 
demand the extermination of property and of capitalists, the 
instant establishment of community of goods, the proscription 
of the rich, the merchants, those of every condition above that 
of wage-earners, . . . and finally the acceptance of the red 
flag, to signify to society its defeat, to the people its victory, 
to ail foreign governments invasion.” 

Laftiartine grew faint with exhaustion and want of food. 

His face was scratched by a bayonet thrust. But his fine 
courage and wit and persuasive eloquence won victory over 


390 


THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1848 


The “ work¬ 
shop ” 
army 


The new 
Assembly 


every danger. To help appease the mob, however, the Govern¬ 
ment hastily adopted a number of radical decrees, writing them 
hurriedly upon scraps of paper and throwing them from a window 
to the crowd. One declared France a Republic. Another 
abolished the House of Peers, Still others established manhood 
suffiage, shortened the 11-hour working day to 10 hours, and 
affirmed the duty of the state to give every man a chance to work. 1 

A few days later, the decree recognizing the “right to work” 
was given more specific meaning by the establishment of “na¬ 
tional workshops” (on paper) for the unemployed. In the 
business panic that followed the Revolution, great numbers of 
men had been thrown out of work. The government now organ¬ 
ized these men in Paris, as they applied, into a “workshop 
army,” in brigades, companies, and squads, — paying full wages 
to all it could employ and a three-fourths wage to those obliged 
to remain idle. 

# 0ver one hundred thousand men, many of them from other 
cities, were soon enrolled in this way; but, except for a little 
work on the streets, the government had no employment ready 
for such a number. The majority of the government, too, suc¬ 
ceeded in placing the management in the hands of a personal 
enemj of Blanc s, and it seems to have been their intention 
that the experiment should fail, so as to discredit Blanc with 
the populace. The experiment was not in any sense a fair trial 
of the socialistic idea. It was a police provision and a tem¬ 
porary poor-law. It preserved order and distributed alms, but 
it also gave a formidable organization to a terrible force with 
which the new Republic would soon have to reckon. 

A new “ Constituent Assembly,” elected by manhood suffrage 
met May 4. The Revolution, like that of 1830, had been 
confined to Paris. The rest of France had not cared to inter¬ 
fere m behalf of Louis Philippe, but it felt no enthusiasm for 
a republic and it abhorred the “Reds” and the Socialists. 

I his too, was the temper of the Assembly. It accepted the 
revolution, but it was bent upon putting down the Radicals. 

* A number of these decrees are given in Anderson’s Documents. 


LOUIS NAPOLEON, PRESIDENT 


391 


As soon as this became evident, the mob rose once more 
(May 15), and burst into the legislative hall, holding possession 
for three turbulent hours. At last, however, some middle- 
class battalions of the National Guard arrived, under Lamar¬ 
tine, to save the Assembly. 

The rescued Assembly promptly followed up its victory. 
After making military preparations, it suddenly abolished the 
workshop aimy without any provision for the absorption of 
the men into other employments. A conservative French states¬ 
man has styled this “a brutal, unjust, blundering end to a 
foolish experiment. The men of the workshop army rose. 
They comprised the great body of the workingmen of Paris, 
and they were aided by their semi-military organization. 
The conflict raged for four days, — the most terrible struggle 
that even turbulent Paris had ever witnessed. Twenty thou¬ 
sand men perished; but in the outcome, the superior discipline 
and equipment of the Assembly’s troops crushed the Socialists 
for another generation. Then eleven thousand prisoners were 
slaughtered in cold blood, or transported for life. This is 
another of those cruel and senseless “White Terrors” which 
arouse very little indignation in society, although society is 
amazed that the class punished in such fashion should develop 
bitter class hatreds. 

f) y now turned to its work of making a consti¬ 
tution. The document 1 was made public in November. It was 
not submitted to a popular vote. It provided for a legislature 
of one house, and for a four-year president, both to be chosen 
by manhood suffrage. A month later (December 10) Louis 
Napoleon , a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, was elected the 
first president of this “Second French Republic” by an over¬ 
whelming majority. 

Napoleon’s political capital was his name. A group of bril¬ 
liant writers, of whom, strangely enough, Thiers was chief, 
had created a “Napoleonic legend,” representing the rule of 
the First Napoleon as a period of glory and prosperity for 

1 The document is given in Anderson’s Constitutions and Documents. 


The Paris 

workmen 

crushed 


The Con¬ 
stitution of 
“ the 
Second 
Republic ” 


“ The 
Napoleonic 
Legend ” 


The 

“ March 
Days ” 
in Central 
Europe 


392 THE YEAR OF REVOLUTIONS 

France, broken only by wars forced upon Napoleon by the 
jealousy of other rulers. These ideas had become a blind 
faith for great masses in France. Louis Napoleon had long 
believed that he was destined to revive the rule of his family. 
Twice in the early years of Louis Philippe’s reign he had tried 
to stir up a Napoleonic revolution, only to become a laughing¬ 
stock to Europe. But now to the peasantry and the middle 
class, alarmed by the specter of Socialism, Napoleon’s name 
seemed the symbol of order and peace. He received over five 
and a half million votes, to about one and a half million for the 
next highest candidate. 

For Further Reading. — Hazen (see page 339 of this volume), 
114-194. (Andrews’ Modern Europe and Seignobos’ Europe since 1814 
remain good.) On early French Socialists, Robinson and Beard’s 
Readings, II. 78-80. On the national workshops of 1848, ib., 80-84. 

II. CENTRAL EUROPE IN ’48 

The year 1848 was the year of revolutions .” In central 
Europe Metternich’s system had lasted until that time. For 
long, however, the forces of revolution had been gathering 
strength for a general upheaval. Metternich, now an old man, 
saw this. In January he wrote to a friend, “The world is very 
sick. The one thing certain is that tremendous changes are 
coming. A month later, the February rising in Paris gave the 
signal for March risings in other lands. Metternich fled from 
Vienna in a laundry cart; and all over Europe thrones tottered 
— except in stable free England on the west, and in stable 
despotic Russia and Turkey on the east. 

Within a few days, in Holland, Spain, Denmark, and Sweden 
to save their crowns, the kings granted new constitutions and 
many liberties. In every one of the German states, large or 
small, the rulers did the like. So, too, in Italy in the leading 
states, — Sardinia, Tuscany, Rome, and Naples. In all these 
countries the administration passed for a time to the hands 
of liberal ministries pledged to reform. Everywhere, too, the 
remains of feudal privilege were finally abolished. 


































































IN THE HAPSBURG REALMS 


393 


Outside France the chief interest centers (1) in the Austrian 
Empire, the storm-center; (2) in Germany, which Austria had 
so long dominated; and (3) in Italy, much of which was sub- 
ject to Austria. 

A. The Revolution in the Austrian Empire 

March 13, two weeks after the French rising, the students of 
the University of Vienna and the populace of the city rose in 
street riots, to the cry, “Down with Metternich.” After his 
escape, the crowds about the Emperor’s palace began to call 
for a constitution, with freedom of speech and with an elected 
legislature. The Emperor promised these and other reforms, 
and appointed a liberal ministry to put them in operation. 

But the Austrian Empire was a vast conglomerate. It in¬ 
cluded many peoples and several distinct states. Two subject 
states in particular now demanded self-government. These 
were Bohemia and Hungary. The Austrians proper were Ger¬ 
mans. They made the bulk of the inhabitants in the old duchy 
of Austria, and they were the ruling class elsewhere in the Em¬ 
pire, comprising, too, a portion of the population everywhere. 
Still they made up less than one fourth of all the inhabitants. 
In Bohemia the hulk of the inhabitants were the native Slavs 
(Czechs); and in the Hungarian half of the Empire, the Hun¬ 
garians (p. 87) were the dominant people. Hungary itself, 
however, was also a conglomerate state. In many of its border 
districts (map opposite), the Slav peoples (Croats, Serbs, Sla¬ 
vonians) made the larger part of the population. 

In Bohemia and Hungary the March risings were not merely 
for liberalism, as in German Austria. They were also for 
Bohemian and Hungarian home rule. These peoples, however, 
did not yet demand complete independence. So the Emperor 
skillfully conciliated both states by granting constitutional 
governments with a large measure of home-rule and the official 
use of their own languages (instead of German). Then he 
used the time so gained to crush similar national movements 
in Italy (below). 


The 

Revolution 
in the 
Austrian 
realms 


394 


THE YEAR OF REVOLUTIONS 


Race 

jealousies 

aid 

autocracy 


The Hun¬ 
garian 
Republic 
falls 


In all this, the government had yielded only to a momentary 
necessity, the Emperor had no intention of keeping his 
sworn promises, but was bent on restoring old conditions. 
In this despotic purpose, he had an ally in race jealously. The 
German Liberals dreaded Slav rule, especially in Bohemia, 
where many Germans lived. Soon, disturbances there be¬ 
tween the two races gave the Emperor excuse to interfere. 
The army was now ready, — as it was not in March, — and, 
in July, the Emperor replaced the constitution he had just 
gi\ en to Bohemia by military rule. Alarmed at this sign of 
reaction, the Radicals rose again in Vienna, and got posses¬ 
sion of the city (October); but the triumphant army, recalled 

now from Bohemia, captured the capital after a savage bombard¬ 
ment. 

The old Emperor (Ferdinand) was embarrassed somewhat by 
his recent solemn pledges to the Liberals and to the subject 
peoples. But now he abdicated in favor of his nephew, the 
shrewd Francis Joseph. This new ruler pleaded that he'had 
never consented to any weakening of his absolute powers, and 
at once restored absolutism both in Bohemia and in the central 
government of the Empire. (This is the ruler who continued 

to guide Austria almost to her final overthrow in the World 
War.) 

Hungary remained to be dealt with. Here, too, race jealousies 
played into the hands of despotism. The Slavs wanted inde¬ 
pendence from the Hungarians; and if they had to be subject 
at all, they preferred German rule from distant Vienna rather 
than Hungarian rule from Budapest. The Hungarians had 
just crushed a rising of the Croats for independence. When 
the new Emperor came to the throne, the Croats rose again, 
Ihis time with imperial aid. Accordingly, the Hungarians 
refused to acknowledge Francis Joseph as emperor. Instead 
they declared Hungary a republic, chose the hero Kossuth 
president, and waged a gallant war for full independence. For 
a time they seemed successful; but the Tsar, in accordance 
with the compact between the monarchs of the Holy Alliance, 


IN GERMANY 


395 


sent a Russian army of 150,000 men to aid Austria, and 
Hungary was crushed (April-August, 1849). 

It remained only for Austria to reestablish her authority in 
Germany, which had been left for a time to Prussia and the 
German Liberals (B, below). 

B. In Germany 

E\en Piussia in 48 had its scenes of blood and slaughter. The 
In Berlin, fiom MArch 13 to IVlarch 18, excited middle-class March 
crowds thronged the streets. They made no attempt at serious “ia 
violence against the government, however, until, in some 
way, never clearly understood, a sharp conflict took place 
with the troops on the 18th. The army inflicted terrible 
slaughter on the unorganized citizens; but Frederick William 
IV was neither resolute enough nor cold-hearted enough to 
follow up his victory. To pacify the people, he sent into 
temporary exile his brother William, who had commanded the 
troops; and he took part in a procession in honor of the slain, 
wearing the red, gold, and black colors of the German patriots. 

Then he called a Prussian parliament to draw up a constitu¬ 
tion. He tried also to put himself at the head of the move¬ 
ment for German national union. “From this time,” he 
declared, “Prussian interests will be absorbed in those of 
Germany.” 

Meantime, a “people’s movement” for German unity had The 
got under way. Early in March, prominent German Liberals Frankfort 
gathered at Heidelberg and called a German National Assembly, Assembly 
to be chosen by manhood suffrage, — arranging the number 
of representatives from each German state. May 18, 1848, 
the National Assembly met at Frankfort. This was the first 
representative assembly of the German people. 

The Assembly had two fatal weaknesses. 

L It did not really represent the whole German people, much 
as it wished to do so, hut only a small middle class of “intellec¬ 
tuals ..” The nobility — with a few rare exceptions — held wholly 
aloof and hostile. The peasantry were too slavish to have any 


396 


THE YEAR OF REVOLUTIONS 


Austria 

interferes 


sympathy with the movement. Bismarck, a reactionary young 
Prussian noble, tells us, later, that it would have been easy to 
rally the Prussian peasantry for a march upon Berlin to rescue 
the king from the revolutionary influences there. And even 
the merchants of the middle class cared for union only or chiefly 
in order to get rid of vexatious tariffs between the various 
states — and cared for freedom not at all. 

2. The Assembly was led by talkers and scholars , not by states¬ 
men or men of action. The members could not understand the 
necessity of compromise or of prompt action. They spent 
precious months in wordy orations and in laying down compre¬ 
hensive theories of government. 

During May and June, the Assembly did organize an ineffec¬ 
tive “provisional government”; but meanwhile Austria had 
crushed Bohemia (p. 394). The next four months at Frankfort 
v ent to debating a bill of rights, while all chance of securing 
any rights was being lost. During this time, Austria restored 
order finally in Italy (p. 400) and recovered Vienna from the 
Radicals. Over all Germany, too, the commercial class was 
becoming bitterly hostile to the revolution because of the long- 
continued business panic; and the new Prussian parliament at 
Berlin, which was to have drawn up a liberal constitution, had 
provoked Frederick William into dissolving it. To be sure, 
the king himself then gave a constitution to Prussia; but it 
was of a very conservative character. In other German states, 
too, the rulers were overthrowing liberal ministries which had 
been set up after the March Days. 

These were the conditions in October when the Frankfort 
Assembly at last took up the making of a constitution. Two 
questions then divided the Assembly: (1) should the new gov¬ 
ernment be monarchic or republican; and (2) should the new 
nation include despotic Austria with her vast non-German pop¬ 
ulation. The republicans had no chance whatever to succeed, 
but they helped to delay action on the more practical question. 
The wrangling went on through the winter of 1849, until Austria 
finally got her hands free elsewhere and announced that she 


THE FRANKFORT ASSEMBLY 397 

would permit no German union into which she did not enter 
with all her provinces. 

Then the Radicals gave up the impossible republic, and the 
Assembly took the step it should have taken months before. 
It decided for a consolidated union without Austria under the 
name of the German Empire; and it offered the imperial crown 
to Frederick W illiam of Prussia. But it was six months too 
late. The fiist enthusiasm among even the middle class was 
gone. And Frederick William was timid: he was influenced 
by a sense of “ honor among kings,” so that he hesitated to take 
advantage of the Austrian Emperor’s embarrassments with 
revolted subjects; and he felt a growing aversion to the move¬ 
ment which, a few months before, he had called “the glorious 
German revolution.” After some hesitation, he declined the 
crown “bespattered with the blood and mire of revolution.” 
In despair the Radicals resorted to arms to set up a republic. 
They were promptly crushed. The National Assembly van¬ 
ished in the spring of 1849, and many German Liberals, like 
Carl Schurz, fled, for their lives, to America. The “people’s” 
attempt to make a German nation had failed — because the 
German “people” as a whole were not fit for union or freedom. 

Next the princes tried — with no better success. In the sum¬ 
mer of 1849, despite the protests of Austria and Bavaria, 
twenty-eight rulers of North German states organized a league 
under the lead of the Prussian king. 

Several of the princes, however, were half-hearted, joining 
only through fear of popular risings. Austria, with Hungary 
now at her feet, organized the South German states into a 
counter-league, and demanded the restoration of the old Con¬ 
federation. The Austrian government announced bluntly 
that it meant to humiliate Prussia. Austrian and Prussian 
troops met on the borders of Bavaria. Shots were exchanged; 
but the Prussian army was not ready. The Russian Tsar 
showed himself ready to aid Austria in Germany as he had done 
in Hungary. Finally Frederick William made ignominious 
submission to the Austrian demands in a conference at Olmiitz 


The people’ 

movement 

fails 


The 

attempt of 
princes for 
German 
unity 


The “ Hu¬ 
miliation of 
Olmiitz ” 


Italy 
betrayed 
both by 
Napoleon 
and the 
Allies 


Italy and 
the 

Congress 
of Vienna 


398 THE YEAR OF REVOLUTIONS 

(November, 1850); and Austria restored the old Germanic Con¬ 
federation of 1815. 

C. The Revolution of ’48 in Italy 

Italy had been in fragments since the days of the Roman 
Empire. Her people, however, had not forgotten that once 
she had ruled the world. Through the Middle Ages, enthusiastic 
Italians had dreamed of national unity, and some of the great 
popes had hoped for a union of the peninsula under papal 
leadership. About 1800, the proclamations of Bonaparte in 
his Italian campaigns, promising independence, again awoke 
hope in Italian hearts ; and, under his control, some advance 
was made toward union (pp. 306, 319). 

Then, when the European coalition was struggling with 
Napoleon, in 1813 and 1814, the generals of the Allies appealed 
to the Italian populations with glowing promises. x Yn English 
force landed at Genoa, with its flag inscribed “Italian Liberty 
and Independence”; and Austrian proclamations announced: 
“We come to you as liberators. Long have you groaned be¬ 
neath oppiession. You shall be an independent nation.” 

The Congress of Vienna ignored these promises and hopes. 
Even the Napoleonic improvements were undone, and medieval 
conditions were restored. Lombardy and Venetia became 
Austrian provinces (p. 329), and most of the rest of the peninsula 
was handed over to Austrian influence. Bourbon rule was re¬ 
stored in the south over the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, 
where the king pledged himself to allow no institutions mor^ 
liberal than those permitted by Austria in her districts. Dukes, 
dependent upon Austria, were set up in Tuscany, Modena, and 
Parma. Between these duchies and Naples lay the restored 
Papal States, with the government in close sympathy with 
Austria. The northwest was given back to the Kingdom of 
Sardinia 1 under a native line of monarchs, to whom the people 

1 During the Napoleonic wars, an English fleet kept Sardinia safe from 

French conquest when the other dominions of her rulers were taken from 
them. 


IN ITALY 


399 


were loyally attached. This was the one Italian state (besides 
the pope s territories) where the ruler was not strictly dependent 
on Austrian protection. But even in Sardinia until 1848 the 
go\ ernment was a military despotism. “ Italy/’ said Metternich 
complacently, “is a mere geographical expression.” 

This remained true from 1815 to 1848. The story of the 
Italian revolutions of 1820 and the Holy Alliance has been told. 
In 1830, after the July Revolution in Paris, new revolutions 
broke out in the Papal States and the small duchies, but these 
movements also were soon put down by Austria. 

The ten years from 1830 to 1840, however, did see the organiza¬ 
tion of “Young Italy” by Mazzini. Mazzini was a lawyer of 
Genoa and a revolutionary enthusiast who was to play, in free¬ 
ing Italy, a part somewhat like that of Garrison and Phillips in 
preparing for our American Civil War. His mission was to create 
a great moral enthusiasm. His words and writings worked 
wonderfully upon the younger Italians of the educated classes, 
and his Society of Young Italy replaced the older Carbonari 
(p. 341). Young Italy had for its program a united Italian 
Republic. The idea of a free and united Italy grew steadily, 
until even some of the rulers became imbued with it. Especially 
did the Liberals hope much from Pius IX, a liberal Italian, who 
was chosen pope in 1846, in opposition to the wishes of Austria. 

Thus when the revolutions of 1848 broke out, Italy was 
ready to strike for national union and independence. In 1820- 
1821, the extremities of the peninsula had been shaken; in 
1830, the middle states; in 1848, there was no foot of Italian 
soil not convulsed, and this time the revolutionists sought union 
as ardently as freedom. 

On the news of Metternich’s flight, Milan and Venice drove 
out their Austrian garrisons. Then Charles Albert, king of 
Sardinia, gave his people a constitution and put himself at the 
head of a movement to expel Austria from the peninsula. The 
pope and the rulers of Tuscany and Naples promised loyal 
aid. Venice and other small states in the north voted enthusi¬ 
astically for incorporation into Sardinia. 


“ Young 
Italy ” 


Italian 
Revolutions 
in ’48 


400 


THE YEAR OF REVOLUTIONS 


Culto^ But the king of Na P Ies was dishonest in his promises; and 
and Novara even the liberal and patriotic pope was not ready to break 
full^ with Austria. Except for a few thousand volunteer 
soldiers, Charles Albert got no help from Italy south of Lom¬ 
bardy ; and, July 15, 1848, he was defeated at Custozza. Then 
the movement passed into the hands of the Radicals. Venice 

and Florence each set up 
a republic; and in Feb¬ 
ruary, 1849, the citizens 
of Rome, led by Mazzini, 
drove away the pope and 
proclaimed the “Roman 
Republic.” 

These republican move¬ 
ments succeeded, for the 
hour, only because Aus¬ 
tria was busied in Bo¬ 
hemia and Hungary. But 
soon a strong Austrian 
army was sent to Italy. 
Charles Albert took the 
field once more, but was 
defeated decisively at 
Novara (March, 1849); 
and Venice was captured 

_ . in August after gallant 

resistance. Louis Napoleon restored the pope to his Roman 

principality, and left a French garrison there for his protec¬ 
tion during the next twenty years, to 1870. 

The failure of the Italians, however, was not shameful, like 
that of the. Germans. They had come near to success; and they 
failed, not became of their own faults, but because of crushing 
foreign interference The splendid attempt had at least revealed 
the fact, that “ United Italy,” once a dream of scattered enthusiasts 
only, had grown into a passionate faith for the whole people . 






MAZZINI 


401 


This well-grounded faith, not merely for a free Italy but for 
a free Europe, was finely spoken to the world by Mazzini, with 
splendid courage, in the very hour of discouraging defeat. 
Mazzini had barely escaped with his life; but in 1849, from his 
refuge in England, while less fortunate associates were dying 
in Italy on scaffolds and under tortures in dungeons, he uttered 
to the exultant forces of reaction this clear-sounding challenge: 

“ Our victory is certain; I declare it with the profoundest 
conviction, here in exile, and precisely when monarchical 
reaction appears most insolently secure. What matters 
the triumph of an hour? What matters it that by con¬ 
centrating all your means of action, availing yourselves of 
every artifice, turning to your account those prejudices and 
jealousies of race which yet for a while endure, and spread¬ 
ing distrust, egotism, and corruption, you have repulsed our 
forces and restored the former order of things? Can you 
restore men’s faith in it, or do you think you can long main¬ 
tain it by brute force alone, now that all faith in it is ex¬ 
tinct ? . . . Threatened and undermined on every side, can 
you hold all Europe forever in a state of siege f ” 

For Further Reading on 1848. — Hazen’s Europe Since 1815, 
152-186. Andrews and Seignobos have good accounts also; and 
Phillips’ European History, 1815-1899, is especially excellent for 1848. 


Mazzini’s 
challenge to 
victorious 
reaction 


The 

shame of 
France: 

“ Napoleon 
the Little ” 


CHAPTER XXVII 


WESTERN EUROPE PROM 1848 TO 1871 

{From the i ear of Revolutions through the Franco-Prussian War) 

Except to the few men of faith, like Mazzini, the risings of ’48 seemed 

to have been m vain. True, feudalism was at last gone forever, even 

rom Austria, and the Holy Alliance was finally disrupted by the rivalry 

between Prussia and Austria. But in government, the restoration of 

despotism appeared complete. The Revolution had closed in Italy 

with the defeat of Novara (March, 1849), in the Austrian realms with 

the fall of the Hungarian Republic (July, 1849), and in Germany with 

* 6 humiIlat ion of Olmutz ” (November, 1850). In France it was 

swiftly going, and was to disappear in 1851 with Napoleon’s coup d’etat 
(below). 

For the next generation of human life, interest on the continent 
centered m three lands, — France, Italy, Germany. And of these only 
Italy during that period was to make true and lasting progress. 


I. FRANCE: THE SECOND EMPIRE, 1852-1870 

In 1830 and in 1848, France had led liberal Europe; but 
for the next twenty years, after she had crushed so bloodily the 
workingmen of Paris, her story is one of shame. Fearing the 

class-hatred” which they themselves had done so much to 
provoke, the middle class threw themselves into the arms of a 
despot for security - while this despot was posing to the work¬ 
ing class as their champion against this same middle class. 

Louis Napoleon, President of the Republic (p. 391), was 
constantly at loggerheads with the Assembly. From the first 
he plotted secretly to overthrow the republican constitution 

to which he had repeatedly sworn fidelity - and to make him- 
self master of France. 

The Assembly played into his hand. In 1849 it passed a 
reactionary law which disfranchised a large part of the working- 

403 


THE COUP D’ETAT OF 1851 


403 


men of the cities. After the law had been passed ,, Napoleon 
criticized it vehemently, so as to appear to the workingmen 
as their champion. At the same time, the discontent of the 
artisans made the middle class fear a revolution; and that 
class turned to Napoleon as the sole hope for order. Thus the • 
chief elements in the state dreaded the approaching close of 
Napoleon’s presidency. 

The constitution forbade a reelection; and an attempt to The coup 
amend this clause was defeated by the Assembly. Thus that d ’ ktat 
body had now seriously offended both the artisan class and the 
middle class; and Napoleon could overthrow it with impunity. 

In semi-royal progresses through France, Napoleon had been 
preparing the nation for his blow. He found fault with the 
Assembly freely, and his speeches were filled with references to 
the “glory” of the former French Empire, and to the benefits 
conferred upon France by “my great uncle.” All important 
offices in the army and in the government were put into the hands 
of his tools and his trusted friends; and on December 2, 1851 , 
he carried out the most striking coup d’etat in all French history. 

During the preceding night, some eighty men whose oppo¬ 
sition was especially feared — journalists, generals, and leaders 
in the Assembly — were privately arrested and imprisoned, 
and all the printing offices in the city were seized by Napo¬ 
leon’s troops. In the morning the amazed people found the 
city posted with startling placards. These announced the dis¬ 
solution of the Assembly, proposed a new government with 
Napoleon at its head, and promised an appeal to the nation for 
ratification. 

The Assembly tried to meet but was dispersed by soldiers, 
and most of the members were imprisoned. During the next 
few days a few Radicals began to raise barricades here and 
there in the streets; but these were carried by the soldiers with 
pitiless slaughter, and the conflict was made an excuse for a 
“reign of terror,” in accordance with a policy of “frightful¬ 
ness.” Batches of prisoners, taken at the barricades, were shot 
down after surrender. The Radical districts of France were put 


404 


THE SECOND FRENCH EMPIRE 


Ratified 

by 

France 


“ Elec¬ 
tions ” 
under 
the Empire 


under martial law. And thousands of men were transported to 
penal settlements, virtually without trial. 

Under these conditions, a few days later, the country was 
invited to vote Yes or No upon a new constitution making 
Napoleon President for Ten Years with dictatorial power. 
France “ratified” this proposal by a vote of seven and a half 
million out of eight million. In November of the next year, 
a nearly unanimous vote made the daring adventurer Emperor of 
the French, under the title Napoleon III . (The Bonapartists 

counted the son of Napoleon I as Napoleon II, though he never 
reigned.) 

The unanimity in the vote was due partly to shameless inter¬ 
ference at the polls. The army was voted first, for an example ; 
and m many places the rural population was marched to the 
polls, under military authority. Such measures, however, were 
not necessary to secure a large majority. Except for a small 

body of Liberals and Socialists, France fell willingly into Na¬ 
poleon’s arms. 

The “Second Empire” was modeled closely upon that of 
Napoleon I. . During its early years, political life was suspended. 

ie people, it is true, elected a Legislative Chamber (a greater 
popular power than existed under the First Empire); but the 
Emperor appointed a Senate and a Council of State; while for 
some years the Chamber could consider no bill that had not been 
put before it by the Emperor and his Council. The legislature 
was not even a free debating society; its function was to register 

d-HL to • 

At the election of a “legislature,” the government presented 
tor every elective position an “official candidate,” for whom the 
way was made easy. Opposing candidates could not hold 
pu lie meetings, nor hire the distribution of circulars. They 
were seriously hampered even in the use of the mails, and their 
placards were torn down by the police, or industriously covered 
y ie official bill-poster for the government candidate. The 
ballot boxes, too, were supervised by the police, and, no 
doubt, were sometimes “stuffed.” Moreover Napoleon sub- 


“GLORY,” “PROSPERITY,” SLAVERY 405 

sidized a large number of newspapers, and suppressed all 
that were unfavorable to him. 

Personal liberty, also, was wholly at the mercy of the govern¬ 
ment. The servants of prominent men were likely to be the 
paid spies of the police. Under the “Law of Public Security” 
(1858), Napoleon could legally send “suspects,” without trial, 
to linger through a slow death in tropical penal colonies (as 
he had been doing illegally be¬ 
fore). Many thousands are 
said to have perished in this 
way. Upon the passage of 
this law, an order was sent to 
each prefect to arrest a fixed 
number of men in his depart¬ 
ment, using his own choice 
in selecting them. The total 
arrests under this order ex¬ 
ceeded two thousand. The 
purpose was merely to intimi¬ 
date the nation — another 
use of a despot’s policy of 
“frightfulness.” 

Napoleon’s methods had 
been those of a dastardly con¬ 
spirator, and his rule was a 
despotism. But he seems honestly to have deceived himself 
into the belief that he was “a democratic chief.” His govern¬ 
ment, he insisted, rested upon manhood suffrage in elections 
and plebiscites. The Restoration (1815-1830), he said, was the 
government of the great landowners; the Orleans Monarchy 
was the government of the middle class; the Empire was the 
government of the people. 

In partial recompense for loss of liberty, too, he gave to 
France great material and economic progress. Industry was 
encouraged. Leading cities were rebuilt upon a more magnifi¬ 
cent scale; and Paris, with its widened streets, shaded boule- 



“France is Tranquil” (a favorite 
phrase with Napoleon III). A car¬ 
toon from Harper's Magazine. 


No personal 
liberty 


Napoleon 
accepted by 
France 


Because of 
“ pros¬ 
perity ” 
















406 


THE SECOND FRENCH EMPIRE 


And 

military 

glory 


The 

Crimean 

War 


yards, and new, glorious public buildings, was made the most 
beautiful capital in the world. Asylums and hospitals were 
founded; schools were encouraged, and school libraries were 
established. And a system of vast public works throughout the 
Empire afforded employment to the working classes. France 
secured her full share of the increase of wealth and comfort 
that came to the world so rapidly during those years. The 
shame is that France was bribed to accept the despicable 
despotism of Napoleon by this prosperity — and by the tinsel 
sham of “glory” in war. 

In 1852 Napoleon had declared “The Empire is Peace’’; 
but he found himself irresistibly impelled to war, in order to 
keep the fav or of the army and of the populace by reviving 
the glories of the First Empire. His foreign policy soon became 
aggressive; and the first years of his reign (1854-1859) saw a 

series of victories that dazzled France. For forty years,_ 

ever since the fall of Napoleon I, — Europe had been free from 
great wars. Napoleon III reintroduced them. The two most 
important wars of this period were the Crimean (1854-1856) 
and the Italian (1859). 

1. France had a trivial quarrel with Russia over the guardian¬ 
ship of Christian pilgrims at Jerusalem. England was hos¬ 
tile to Russia, fearing lest that Power should force itself to the 
Mediterranean and endanger England’s route to India; and, 
it is fair to add, English Liberals feared Russian autocracy (the 
main support then of the despotic Holy Alliance) much as 
Liberals in recent years have feared German autocracy. Russia 
and Turkey were at war in the Black Sea. Through Napoleon’s 
intrigues, France and England joined Turkey. The struggle 
was waged mainly in the Crimea, and took its name from that 
peninsula. Russia was defeated, but no permanent results of 
importance were achieved. At the close of the contest, how¬ 
ever, Napoleon gathered representatives of all the leading Powers 
at the Congress of Paris, to make peace, and France seemed 
again to have become the arbiter in European politics. 


LOUIS NAPOLEON’S WARS 


407 


2. In 1859 Napoleon joined the Kingdom of Sardinia in a war 
against Austria to free Italy. He won striking victories at 
Magenta and Solferino, near the scene of the early triumphs 
of the First Napoleon over the same foe; and then he made 
unexpected peace, to the dismay and wrath of the half-freed 
Italians. For his pay, Napoleon forced Italy to cede him the 
provinces of Nice and Savoy (pp. 305, 328). 

But the second half of Napoleon’s rule was a series of humilia¬ 
tions and blunders. 

Napoleon favored the Southern Confederacy in the American 
Civil War, and repeatedly urged England, in vain, to unite with 
him in acknowledging it as an independent state. Thus he 
incurred the hostility of the United States. 

Then in 1863 he entered upon a disastrous scheme in Mexico. 
That country had repudiated its debts. Several European 
governments had sent fleets to its ports to compel payment to 
their citizens; but soon it became plain that Napoleon meant 
much more than the mere collection of debts. Thereupon, the 
other governments withdrew from the enterprise. Napoleon 
then sent a large army to overthrow the Mexican Republic and 
to set up as '‘Emperor of Mexico” his protege, Maximilian, 
an Austrian prince, brother of Emperor Franz Joseph. 

Napoleon expected (1) to secure a larger share of the Mexican 
trade for France; (2) to increase the prestige of France as ar¬ 
biter in the destinies of nations; and (3) to forward a union of 
the Latin peoples of Europe and America, under French leader¬ 
ship. His act was a defiance of the Monroe Doctrine of the 
United States, but his purpose seemed triumphant until the 
close of the American Civil War. Then the government of the 
United States demanded the withdrawal of the French troops 
from Mexico. Napoleon was obliged to comply. Soon after¬ 
wards Maximilian was overthrown by the Mexicans, and cap¬ 
tured and shot. 

More serious still were a number of checks in Napoleon’s 
attempts on the Rhine frontier. These brought about his 


The Italian 
War of 

1859 


Blunders in 

Napoleon’s 

later 

foreign 

policy 


408 


THE MAKING OF ITALY 


restoration “ 187 °' That Story wili be told after we have studied the 

of political 1 ' Sl ‘ Germany. Here we need only note that as Napoleon 

liberty lost favor with the French populace, through these humiliations 

in foreign relations, he felt compelled to yield to France a larger 

share in the government. In particular, during the latter years 

of his rule, the Legislative Chamber became almost a real 

legislature, with perfect freedom of debate. France had begun 
to '‘come back.” 

For Further Reading. — See comment on pp. 339, 401 as to 
books. Hazen, 194-300, gives the best one story. On the Coup d’Etat 
Robinson and Beard’s Readings, II, 88-94. 


Piedmont 
the hope 
of Italy 


Victor 

Emmanuel 

II 


II. THE MAKING OF ITALY, 1849-1861 

Meantime Italy had been made. “Forty-nine” had shown 
that the Kingdom of Sardinia was the only state from whose 
government real help could be hoped for in a struggle for Italian 
unity. There the ruling house had proved itself ready to dare 
greatly and sacrifice much for the cause. At home, too, the 
king had given a liberal constitution to his people. Thence- 
foiward, the hopes of Italian liberals turned to that state. The 
making of Italy is the history of Piedmont from 1849 to 1861. 

The night after the defeat of Novara (p. 400), Charles Albert 
abdicated the crown, and his son, Victor Emmanuel II, became 

A mg ° , Sardinia * Th e young prince was an intense patriot 
A popular story told how, as he rallied his shattered regiment 
at tie close of the fatal day of Novara, and withdrew sullenly 
from the bloody field, covering the retreat, he shook his clenched 
hst at the victorious Austrian ranks with the solemn vow - 
Ly the Almighty, my Italy shall yet be ! ” 

The new king was put at once to a sharp test. Austria 
emanded that he abolish the new constitution, hateful to 
Austria s divine-right despotism. If he would do so, Austria 
offered easy terms of peace, with promise of military support 
against any revolt. At the same time the inexperienced and 
obstinate bardmian parliament was embarrassing the king by 


VICTOR EMMAMUEL AND CAVOUR 


409 


foolish opposition and criticism. But Victor Emmanuel nobly 
refused the Austrian bribe. Said he, “I would rather lose my 
crown.” In consequence, he had to submit to severe terms from 
Austria and a heavy indemnity. But a frank appeal to his people 
for support gave him a new loyal parliament, which ratified the 
peace, and his conduct won him the title of “ the Honest King.” 

Austria, which Sardinia wished to expel from Italy, had 
37,000,000 people. Sardinia was poor and had only 5,000,000 
people. The king and his great minister, Cavour, bent all 
energies to strengthening Sardinia for another struggle and to 
securing allies outside Italy. Victor Emmanuel was essentially 
a soldier. Cavour was the statesman whose brain was to guide 
the making of Italy. The king’s part was loyally and steadily 
to support him. Exiles and fugitive Liberals from other Italian 
states were welcomed at the Sardinian court and were often 
given high office there, so that the government seemed to belong to 
the whole peninsula. Cavour carried through the parliament 
many economic, military, and social reforms. And, in 1854, he 
sent a small but excellent Sardinian army to assist the allies 
against Russia in the Crimean War (p. 406). Mazzini called 
this action a monstrous moral degradation, and many other 
Liberals condemned it bitterly as immoral; but it is well to see 
Cavour’s two reasons for it. 

1. The Crimean War, unnecessary as it was, was, after all, 
in a way a defiance of despotic Russia. Italy had special 
reason to join in this feeling toward Russia: the Tsar had 
been strongly opposed to the liberal movements of 1848; he 
had helped crush Hungary, virtually an ally of Sardinia in 
the war of that period; and he had declined to recognize the 
accession of Victor Emmanuel. 

2. Cavour wished to show that Sardinia was a military 
power, and to secure for her a place in the councils of Europe, 
so as to obtain intervention for Italy against Austria. This 
second reason, of course, was the deeper motive. Said an 
Italian officer to his soldiers digging in the trenches before Sebas¬ 
topol, “Of this mud our Italy is to be made.” 


Cavour 


And the 
Crimean 
War 


410 


THE MAKING OF ITALY 


Cavour at 
the 

Congress of 
Paris 


The 

French 

alliance 


Sardinia 

absorbs 

Lombardy 


Sardinia 

absorbs 

the 

duchies 


At the Congress of Paris in 1856 (p. 406) Cavour’s policy bore 
fruit. Cavour sat there on full equality with the representa¬ 
tives of the Great Powers; and, despite Austria’s protests, he 
secured attention for a convincing statement of the needs of 
Italy. Upon all minds he impressed forcefully that Italian 
unrest could never cease, nor European peace he secure, so long 
as Austria remained in the peninsula. 

Thiee ^ears later this patient diplomatic game was won. 
As a young man, in exile from France, Louis Napoleon had 
been involved in the plots of the Carbonari for Italian freedom 
(p. 341). Cavour now drew him into a secret alliance. In 
return for a pledge of Nice and Savoy, which had once been 
French for a short time, Napoleon promised to come to the aid 
of Saidinia if Cavour could provoke Austria into beginning a war. 

Austria played into Cavour’s hand by demanding, as a war 
ultimatum, that Italy reduce her army. Napoleon at once 
entered Italy, declaring his purpose to free it “from the Alps 
to the Adriatic.” His victories of Magenta and Solferino 
(p. 407) drove Austria forever out of Lombardy, which was 
promptly incorporated into Sardinia. This was the first step in 
the expansion of Sardinia into Italy. The population of the 
grow ing state had risen at a stroke from five millions to eight. 

Venetia remained in Austria’s hands, but Napoleon sud¬ 
denly made peace. The Italians felt that they had been be¬ 
trayed by “the infamous treaty”; 1 and probably they were 
right. Napoleon had no wish that Italy should be one strong, 
consolidated nation; and he began to see that a free Italy 
would be a united Italy. 

But more had already been accomplished than the mere free¬ 
ing of Lombardy. At the beginning of the war, the peoples 
of the duchies (Parma, Modena, and Tuscany) ^fiad driven out 
their dukes (dependents of Austria) and had set up provisional 
governments. At the peace, Napoleon had promised Austria 
that the dukes should be restored. He had stipulated, how- 

1 Read James Russell Lowell’s Villafranca , to get an idea of the wrath of 
ireedom-loving men at Napoleon’s betrayal. 


GARIBALDI AND CAVOUR 


411 



ever, that Austria should not use force against the duchies; 
and the people now insisted upon incorporation with Sardinia. 

For eight months this situation continued, while Cavour 
played a second delicate diplomatic game with Napoleon. 
Only a foreign army could again place the dukes upon their 
thrones, and Cavour finally persuaded Napoleon to leave the 
matter to a plebiscite, his 
own favorite device in 
France. In March, 1860, 
the three duchies by al¬ 
most unanimous votes 1 
declared again for annexa¬ 
tion. This was the second 
step in expansion — and 
the first example in Europe 
of “ self-determination,” as 
we now use the phrase. 

Sardinia was enlarged once 
more by one third. It 
had now become a state 
of eleven million people, 
comprising all Italy north 
of the papal districts, ex¬ 
cept Venetia. 

The next advance was 
due in its beginning to 
Garibaldi (a gallant re¬ 
publican soldier in the Revolution of 1848), who had now 
given his allegiance loyally to Victor Emmanuel. In May, 
1860, Garibaldi sailed from Genoa with a thousand red-shirted 
fellow-adventurers, to arouse rebellion in Sicily. Cavour 
thought it needful to make a show of trying to stop the ex¬ 
pedition. When it was safely under way, he expressed his 
“regret” in a note to the Powers of Europe. And he had 


Garibaldi’s Monument in Turin. Gari¬ 
baldi was the soldier of Italian free¬ 
dom, as Mazzini was its prophet, and 
Cavour its statesman. 


Garibaldi 

adds 

South 

Italy 


1 In Tuscany the vote stood 366,571 to 14,925: and this was the largest 
adverse vote. 





412 


THE MAKING OF ITALY 


With the 
assent of 
the people 


A new 
“ Kingdom 
of Italy ” 


sent a message to the Sardinian admiral, — “Try to place 
your fleet between Garibaldi and the Neapolitan cruisers. I 
hope you understand me.” The admiral “understood” very 
well that he was to protect, not hinder, the expedition. Gari¬ 
baldi landed safely in Sicily and won. the island almost without 
bloodshed. Crossing to the mainland he easily occupied 

Naples also, while the 
Bourbon king fled. Obey¬ 
ing a popular demand, 
Garibaldi proclaimed Vic¬ 
tor Emmanuel “ Kina of 
Italy ” 

Garibaldi then planned 
to seize Rome from its 
French garrison. Such a 
move would have brought 
on intervention from both 
Austria and France, and 
would have put at hazard 
all that had been gained. 
Cavour made prompt de¬ 
cision. Victor Emmanuel 
with the Sardinian army 
moved south to take up 

the war in the Kingdom 
of Naples, and to check Garibaldi’s mad march. Rome and 
the surrounding territory was left to the pope; but the Marches 
and Umbria (the eastern part of the Papal States) were al¬ 
lowed, with the Kingdom of Naples, to vote on the question 
of annexation to Sardinia. The vote was even more nearly 
unanimous than that in the duchies had been. 

These additions made the third step in the expansion of “ Sar¬ 
dinia” into “ Italy.” The new state now comprised all the 
peninsula except Rome and Venetia; and it reached from the 
Alps to Sicily. This time the population was raised from eleven 
to twenty-two millions. In February, 1861, the first “Italian 


a 



Cavour. From Desmaisons’ lithograph. 




CAVOUR’S VICTORY 


413 


parliament ” met at Turin and enthusiastically confirmed the 
establishment of the “Kingdom of Italy.” Cavour’s states¬ 
manship was triumphant. In this first parliament of the new 
nation an opposition party to the great minister hardly raised 
its head. Five months later, Cavour was dead, broken down 
by the terrible strain of his work. His last words were, “ Italy 
is made all is safe.” His achievements rank among the most 
marvelous in all modern statesmanship. 

The acquisition of the two remaining provinces, Venetia and 
Rome (1867 and 1870), was intertwined with the making of 
Germany (below). 

. ^ OR Further Reading. — Bolton King’s Italian Unity is the best 
single work. Good accounts will be found in Probyn’s Italy , Bolton 
King’s Mazzim, Dicey’s Victor Emmanuel, or Cesaresco’s Cavour. 
Hazen, Andrews, Seignobos, and Phillips, all contain brief treatments 
Good material will be found in Robinson and Beard’s Readings, II. 

Exercise. — Trace the expansion of Sardinia into Italy on the map, 

623. 

Special Report. Garibaldi’s life and adventures. 

III. THE MAKING OF GERMANY, 1861-1871 

Napoleon III ruled France for some twenty years. During 
the first half of this period, Cavour made the Kingdom of Italy. 
Those years had been barren in Germany; but during the next 
ten years Bismarck, by far less justifiable methods, was to make 
a German Empire. 

“Forty-nine” had shown Prussia as the only nucleus in that 
day for a German nation; and even from Prussia nothing could 
be expected as long as Frederick William IV reigned. But in 
1861 that king was succeeded by his brother, William I. This 
was the prince who had been banished for a time in 1848 to 
satisfy the Liberals (p. 395). That party had nicknamed him 
“Prince Cartridge.” He was a conservative of the old school, 
and he had bitterly opposed the mild constitutional concessions 
of his brother. But he was also a patriot to the core. He had 
tingled with indignation at the humiliation of Olmutz. He 
hoped, too, with all his heart, for German unity; and he believed 


William I 
of 

Prussia 


414 


THE MAKING OF GERMANY 


The 

Prussian 

army 

system 


Neglected, 

1815-1861 


Otto von 
Bismarck 


that this unity could be made only after expelling Austria from 
Germany. To expel Austria would be the work of the Prussian 
army. 

The Prussian army differed from all others in Europe. Else¬ 
where the armies were of the old class, — standing bodies of 
mercenaries and professional soldiers, reinforced at need by 
raw levies from the population. The Napoleonic wars had 
resulted in a different system for Prussia. In 1807, after Jena, 
Napoleon had required Prussia to reduce her army to forty- 
two thousand men. The Prussian government, however, had 
evaded Napoleon’s purpose to keep her weak, by passing fresh 
bodies of Prussians through the regiments at short intervals. 
Each soldier was given only two years’ service. Part of each 
regiment was dismissed each year and its place filled with 
new levies. These in turn took on regular military discipline, 
while those who had passed out were held as a reserve. 

After the Napoleonic wars were over, Prussia kept up this 
system. The plan was to make the entire male population a 
trained army; but it had not been fully followed up. Since 
1815, population had doubled, but the army had been left upon 
the basis of that period. No arrangements had been made for 
organizing new regiments; and so many thousand men each 
year reached military age without being summoned into the 
ranks. Indeed, not half were called. 

King William’s first efforts were directed to increasing the 
number of regiments so as to accommodate 60,000 new recruits 
each year. To do this required a large increase in taxes. But 
the Piussian parliament (Landtag) was jealous of military 
power in the hands of a sovereign hostile to constitutional 
liberty, and it resolutely refused money. Then William found 
a minister to carry out his will, parliament or no. 

This man, who was to be the German Cavour, was Otto von 
Bismarck. Thirteen years earlier, Count Bismarck had been 
known as a grim and violent leader of the “ Junkers,” the ex¬ 
treme conservative party made up of young landed aristocrats 
(p. 396). He held to the doctrine of the divine right of kings: 


BISMARCK AND HIS WARS 


415 


and when he was announced as the head of a new ministry, 
the Liberals ominously prophesied a coup d'etat. 

Something like a coup d’etat did take place. The Prussian 
constitution declared that the ministers must be “ responsible ” 
to the Landtag, or parliament. But this did not mean respon¬ 
sible in the Modern English sense : that is, it did not mean that 
they must resign if outvoted; but only that they might be 
held to account for their actions. William stood steadfastly 
by his minister; and for four years Bismarck ruled and collected 
taxes unconstitutionally. 

Over and over again, the Landtag demanded Bismarck’s 
dismissal, and many violent scenes took place. The Liberals 
threatened to hang him, — as very probably they would have 
done if power had fallen to them by another revolution. Unable 
to do that, they challenged him repeatedly to duels. Bismarck 
in turn denounced any prospect of alliance between the govern¬ 
ment and democracy as ‘‘shameful”; railed at the Liberals 
contemptuously as “mere pedants,” and told them bluntly 
that the making of Germany was to be “ a matter not of speechi¬ 
fying and parliamentary majorities, but of blood and iron.” 
And for years he grimly went on, muzzling the press, bullying 
or dissolving parliaments, and overriding the national will 
roughshod. 

Meantime, the army was greatly augmented, so that practi¬ 
cally every able-bodied Prussian became a soldier with three 
years training in camp. First of any large army, too, this new 
Prussian army was supplied with the new invention of breech¬ 
loading repeating rifles, instead of the old-fashioned muzzle- 
loaders ; and Von Moltke, the Prussian “chief of staff,” made it 
the most perfectly organized miMary machine in Europe. 

From the first, Bismarck intended that this reconstructed 
army should expel Austria from Germany and force the princes 
of the rest of Germany into a true national union. It had not 
been possible for him to avow his purpose; but time was grow¬ 
ing precious, and he began to look anxiously for a chance to 
use his new tool. By a series of master-strokes of unscrupulous 


The army 
reorganized 


Bismarck’s 
“ trilogy ” 
of wars 


416 


THE MAKING OF GERMANY 


Sleswig- 
Holstein 
and the 
Danish 
War 


and daring diplomacy, he brought on three wars in the next 
seven years, — the Danish War (1864), the Six Weeks’ War 
with Austria (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870- 
1871). Out of these war clouds emerged a new Germany. 


For a long period the two duchies, Sleswig and Holstein, 
at the base of the Danish peninsula, had been loosely connected 
with the kingdom of Denmark. The union was one of those 
personal” unions that have often confused the map of Europe. 
That is, the Danish king was also the duke of these two provinces. 
They were not subject to Danish law, but had assemblies of their 
own. The people of Sleswig were, in the main, Danes by blood; 
but in the southern province the population was German. 

In 1863, the King of Denmark abolished the Sleswig assembly 
and incorporated that duchy in the Kingdom of Denmark 
Something of this kind had been talked for fifteen years. Many 
people in Germany resented the prospect that Holstein might 
meet a like fate, and wished instead that the duchies, under 
an independent ruler of their own, should become a member of 
the Germanic Confederation. This situation caused a revival of 
many conflicting and complicated claims by various German 
princes, who, each in his own behalf, disputed the claim of the 
Danish king in the duchies. At any time, it was long felt, this 
Sleswig-Holstein question might plunge Europe into war. 

n all this obscure and confused mess, one thing is absolutely 
r- Prussia had no claim whatever to any part of the duchief 
ut Bismarck had determined that Prussia should get them’ 
e elt no moral hesitation, and he had skillfully guarded against 
m erference by the Powers. Russia he had conciliated by S 
g hei a few months before to put down a Polish rebellion so 

Nat eon m a w" "“t ^ *° give h ™ a *ee ha’nd. 
JNapoleon III, as Bismarck afterward explained, “had been 

allowed to deceive himself” into thinking that France would be 

permitted to annex Rhine territory to “indemnify” her for 

Prussia s proposed gam; England would not fight unsupported 

Austria might have been expected surely to try to keep Denmark 


THE SIX WEEKS’ WAR 


417 


strong, as a check upon Prussia; but Austria, the natural ally of 
Denmark, Bismarck made his accomplice in the robbery by ap¬ 
pealing to her greed. This was perhaps the greatest triumph in 
all Bismarck’s crooked and wicked diplomacy. All the rest of his 
plan rested upon it. In 1864 the Prussian and Austrian armies 
seized the duchies, despite the gallant resistance of the Danes. 

Then Bismarck forced Austria into war over the division of 
the spoils. He claimed both duchies for Prussia; and, though 
at Austria s indignant protest a system of joint protection was 
temporarily arranged, it soon became plain that the Prussian 
minister meant to secure all the booty. 

King William, however, had scruples. He wanted to fight 
Austria, but he wanted a just cause. Bismarck had drawn 
Italy into an alliance by which that country promised to join in 
an attack upon Austria; but to satisfy his king, he must pro¬ 
voke Austria into some offensive act. So he was driven to 
desperate wiles. He continued to make absurd demands regard¬ 
ing the duchies, such as he knew could not be granted. At 
last, the German Diet summoned Prussia to refer the whole 
matter to its decision (perfectly in accord with the rules of the 
Confederation). Bismarck agreed to do this, if the Diet would 
first exclude Austria from the Germanic Confederation. Under 
Austria’s lead the Diet then declared war on Prussia, “the 
wanton disturber of the national peace” (June 14, 1866). 
Bismarck w T as as jubilant as Cavour had been when he had 
drawn Austria into war in 1859. 

Practically all Germany held to Austria. But Bismarck 
and Von Moltke were certain of success. In three days the 
Prussian army seized Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony, — the 
important hostile states in North Germany; and in less than 
three weeks from the declaration of war, Austria was com¬ 
pletely crushed at Sadowa (Koniggratz) in Bohemia. The 
war is known as “the Six Weeks’ War.” 

The peace gave Venetia to Italy (p. 413). The other still 
more important provisions come under two heads. The 


The “ Six 
Weeks’ 
War ” 
with 
Austria 


The North 
German 
Confedera¬ 
tion 


Liberals 
won over to 
autocracy 
and 

militarism 


418 THE MAKING OF GERMANY 

first set augmented Prussian territory. The second set re¬ 
organized Germany. 

1. Prussia annexed Hesse, Hanover, Nassau, and the “free 
city of Frankfort. These acquisitions consolidated her formerly 
scattered lands. She also kept Sleswig-Holstein, with the mag¬ 
nificent harbor of Kiel. Her territory was enlarged one half; 
and her population rose to thirty millions. No other German 
state approached this — now that Austria was no longer to be 
a German state. 


Frederick II at his accession ruled over two and a half 
million subjects. This number was doubled during his 
reign, with some new territory. By 1815, it had doubled 
again, to ten millions. In the next half-century (1815- 
1866), the population had doubled, without additions of 
territory. The Six Weeks’ War raised it from twenty 

to thirty millions. (Compare the map opposite with that 
on page 248.) 


2. Austria definitely withdrew from German affairs, and 
the Confederation of 1815 was replaced by two federations. 
The first was known as The North German Federation. This 
union was placed under Prussian presidency. It was not a 
loose league like the old Confederacy, but a true federal state 
with much the same constitution as the later German Empire 
The second federation included the four South German states, 
Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Baden. This 
umon was intended to be similar to the old Confederacy of 1815 
ol which, indeed, it was a survival. 


A third and indirect result of the war concerns the character 
the Prussian government. After Sadowa, Bismarck was the 
idol of the Prussian people. As soon as his purpose to fight 
Austria became plain, the Liberal opposition in Prussia had 
been hushed. The Landtag passed enthusiastically the act of 
indemnity he requested for his previous illegal acts, and gave 
lm a ear y support that made it easier for him to complete his 


THE SIX WEEKS’ WAR 


419 




























































































420 


THE MAKING OF GERMANY 


work. Now that the military policy had apparently proven so 
profitable , the Prussian Liberals in general abandoned their old 
opposition to Prussian autocracy. 

Bismarck Bismarck had outwitted Louis Napoleon in both the pre- 

Napoleon III ce dmg wars. After the Danish War, Napoleon had expected 
to get at least Luxemburg, by Prussia’s aid, in return for giving 
her a free hand (p. 416). And when the Six Weeks’ War began, 
he thought his chance had surely come. Bismarck had visited 
him shortly before, and had again “permitted” him to deceive 
himself. Napoleon meant, however, to remain neutral at first, 
and then step in at the critical moment to save the vanquished. 
The vanquished, he was sure, would be Prussia. In gratitude 

for his protection, Prussia would sanction his annexing German 
territory on the Rhine. 

But the war was over, and over the other way, before Napo¬ 
leon’s armies were ready. The chance was past: but Napoleon 
weakly tried negotiation. He suggested to Bismarck that 
France be allowed to annex part of Bavaria (one of Prussia’s 
antagonists in the war), to offset Prussia’s annexations; and 
then France would give Prussia a free hand in reorganizing 
Germany. Bismarck was already planning war with France, 
and this proposal delivered Napoleon into his hands. He 
revealed it privately to the South German states. This terri¬ 
fied them into a secret alliance with Prussia. Now a war with 
France would fuse the two German Confederations into one 
This Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) Bismarck hurried 
on wit characteristic craft. But his success was made possible 
on y by the folly and envy of the rulers of France. French 
military authorities looked with jealousy and hatred upon the 

rise of a German nation; and Napoleon was bent desperately 
on retrieving his tottering reputation. 

The immediate occasion for war grew out of a proposal of 
the Spaniards to place upon their throne a German prince a 
distant relative of King William of Prussia. Napoleon called 
upon William to prevent this, urging that it would be dangerous 


COMPLETED BY WAR WITH FRANCE 


421 


to the peace of Europe. It would have left France between 
two Hohenzollerns, as in the seventeenth century she had been 
between the two Hapsburgs. William did induce his relative to 
decline the offered crown. Napoleon, however, was bent upon 
humiliating William. So the French ambassador insisted that 
William should give a definite pledge that the offer, if renewed, 
would not be accepted. King William very properly declined 
to do this; but his refusal, though firm, was so courteous that 
there was no cause for offense. 

This interview took place at Ems. William at once tele¬ 
graphed an account of the meeting to Bismarck at Berlin; 
and Bismarck himself tells us how his own dishonest cunning 
brought war out of this situation after all. Bismarck was at 
dinner with Moltke, speculating hopefully upon the chances 
for the war they wanted. The king’s telegram arrived. “As 
I read it to him, says Bismarck, “ Moltke’s whole bearing sud¬ 
denly changed. He looked old and sick. ... I asked him if 
[in case of war] we might surely count upon victory. On his 
affirmative reply, I said ‘Wait a minute,’ and, seating myself 
at a small table, I boiled down those two hundred words [of 
the king s message] to about twenty, but without otherwise 
altering or adding anything. It was the same telegram, yet 
something different shorter, more determined, less dubious. 
I handed it [to Moltke], and asked, ‘Well, how does that do?’ 
Yes, said Moltke, it will do in that form.’ And he immediately 

became quite young and fresh again. He had got his war, his 
trade.” 1 

As Bismarck had “edited” the telegram, it made King 
William seem to insult the French envoy. Bismarck at once 
gave out the message in this deceitful and irritating form to 
the press; and, as he hoped, France took fire and declared war 
(July 19, 1870). 

A few French statesmen had kept their heads, Thiers among 
them, and had opposed the declaration, on the ground that 

Anderson s Constitutions and Documents gives in parallel columns the 
“Ems Dispatch” and Bismarck’s version. 


Bismarck 

tricks 

France 

into the 

Franco- 

Prussian 

War 


The 

Ems 

telegram 


422 


THE MAKING OF GERMANY 


The 

arrogance 
and ineffi¬ 
ciency of 
Napoleon’s 
government 


“ German 
efficiency ” 
surprises 
the world 


The 

German 

Empire 


France was not properly prepared. But Napoleon’s war- 
minister answered such objections by the boast, “ We are thrice 
ready, down to the last soldier’s shoestring”; and France, 
which for centuries had never been beaten by one foe, shouted 
light-heartedly, “On to Berlin.” The first attempts to move 
troops, however, showed that the French government was 
honeycombed with corruption and inefficiency. Regiments 
lacked men. There was no discipline. Arsenals were empty. 
Transportation was not ready where it was needed, and supplies 
of all sorts were of poor quality. The French fought gallantly; 
but they were outnumbered and outgeneraled at every point. 

Marked, indeed, was the contrast between this French 
inefficiency and the “German efficiency,” now revealed to 
Europe. The news that France had declared war reached 
Berlin late at night. Von Moltke was awakened by an aide, for 
directions. The story goes that the great general merely turned 
over, saying, “You will find all instructions in the upper right 
hand drawer in my desk. Telegraph the orders as filed there.” 

At all events, twelve days after the declaration of war (August 
1), Germany had put one and a quarter million of trained 
troops into the field and had massed most of them on the Rhine. 
The world had never seen such marvelous perfection of military 
preparation Carlyle wrote “It took away the breath of 
Europe.” August 2, William took command at Mainz. The 
Prussians won victory after victory. One of the two main 
French armies 1 1 3,000 men — was securely shut up in 
Metz. And, September 2, the other, of 130,000 men, was 
captured at Sedan, with Napoleon in person. Napoleon 
remained a prisoner of war for a few months, and soon after¬ 
ward died in England. Meantime the Prussians pressed on to 
the siege of Paris. 

Out of the war clouds emerged a new German Empire. 
The South-German peoples went wild with enthusiasm for 
Prussia. By a series of swift treaties, while this feeling was 
at its height, Bismarck brought them all into the North Ger¬ 
man Confederation. Then he arranged that the King of 


FRAUD AND VIOLENCE 


423 


Bavaria and other leading German rulers should ask King 
William to take the title of German Emperor. And on Janu¬ 
ary 18, 1871, while the siege of Paris was still going on, in the 
ancient palace of French kings at Versailles, William solemnly 
assumed that title. This act was soon ratified by a parliament 
of all Germany. 



Germany had been made not merely by (< blood and iron” but Bismarck 

also by fraud and falsehood. One can hardly tell the story methods: 

J the 
moral 
question 


Proclamation of the German Empire. From the painting by von 
Werner. Compare with the humiliation of the German envoys in the 
same place forty years later, when that Empire, born of war, had been 
destroyed by another war of its making; see p. 686. 

of such gigantic audacity and successful trickery without seem¬ 
ing to glorify it. Of course, Bismarck did not work for low or 
personal ends. He was inspired by a real and broad patriotism. 
The national union which he made had to come before the 
German people could reach the best elements of modern life. 

But he sought his end by base means. Bismarck’s methods 
were distinctly lower than Cavour’s; and his success tended 
to lower the tone of morality among nations. “ Treaties,” 
he said, “are scraps of paper”; and again, “when Prussia’s 
power is in question I know no law.” His policy of fraud and 




424 


THE MAKING OF GERMANY 


violence, too, while successful at the moment, left Germany 
troubled with burning questions, and burdened with the crush¬ 
ing weight of militarism and with the rule of the police and the 
drill sergeant in private life (pp. 507-513). In his Prussian 
hate for democracy and in his Prussian contempt for interna¬ 
tional morality, he started the new Empire upon the road which, 
forty years later, plunged it into the abyss. 

One good thing came from Bismarck’s victory over Napo¬ 
leon. At the outbreak of war in 1870, Napoleon was obliged 
at once to withdraw his garrison from Rome (p. 400). Then 
Victor Emmanuel’s troops at last marched into Italy’s an¬ 
cient capital, and the Roman citizens ratified this consum- 

i 

mation of the union of Italy by an almost unanimous vote. 
(Cf. map on p. 623.) 

The later story of France and Germany can he best understood 
after studying the groivth of constitutional government in England. 

For Further Reading. — Hazen, Europe Since 1815, 240-306. 
Headlam’s Bismarck , and his Germany from 1815 to 1889, are excellent. 

Exercise. 1 . Review the story of Germany from the Congress of 
Vienna to the establishment of the Empire. 2. The story of Italy from 
1814 to the final union of the peninsula in 1870. Note that from 1850 
to 1870 continental European history in concerned with (1) the shame 
of the Second Empire in France for the entire period; (2) the glorious 
making of Italy in the first half; and (3) the making of Germany by 
fraud and violence in the second half. 


Italy wins 
Rome in 
1870 


PART VIII 

ENGLAND 1815-1914: REFORM WITHOUT REVOLUTION 

England in the nineteenth century served as a political model for 
Europe. The English developed constitutional monarchy, parliamentary 
government, and safeguards for personal liberty. Other nations have 
only imitated them. — Seignobos. 


-♦- 

CHAPTER XXVIII 

THE “FIRST REFORM BILL,” 1832 

In the eighteenth century, we have seen, England acquired a 
world-empire and gave the world the Industrial Revolution. 
But, in political matters, that century was singularly uninterest¬ 
ing. In the preceding century England had led the world in 
political progress; and she was to do so again in the nineteenth 
century. But in the eighteenth, except for accidental progress 
in the matter of ministerial government (p. 212 ff.), England 
actually went backward in freedom. Parliament had never 
been democratic in make-up, and, after 1688, it shriveled up 
into the selfish organ of a small class of landlords. 

This came about largely by accident. The House of Com¬ 
mons contained 658 members. Ireland sent 100, and Scotland 
45. Each of the 40 English counties, large or small, sent two. 
The rest came from “parliamentary boroughs” in England and 
Wales. The old kings had summoned representatives from 
whatever boroughs they pleased; but a borough which had 
once sent representatives had the right, by custom, to send 
them always afterward. At first the power to a summon” new 
boroughs was used wisely to recognize new towns as they grew 
up. But the Tudor monarchs, in order better to manage parlia- 

425 


Political 
retrogres¬ 
sion of 
the 

eighteenth 

century 


“ Virtual 
representa¬ 
tion ” 




426 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 


Unrepre¬ 

sented 

cities 


And repre¬ 
sented ruins 


ments, had summoned representatives from little hamlets which 
had no just claim to representation. These were “ pocket 
boroughs” — owned or controlled by some lord of the court 
party. 

This had condition was made worse by natural causes. In 
early times the south of England, with its fertile soil and its 
ports on the Channel, had been the most populous part; but in 
the eighteenth century, with the growth of manufactures, popu¬ 
lation shifted to the coal and iron regions of the north and west. 
In Elizabeth’s day that part of the island had only insignificant 
towns. Before 1800, great cities grew up there, like Birming¬ 
ham, Bradford, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, some 
of them with more than 100,000 people (p. 374). But these new 
towns could get no representation in Parliament, because after 
the “Restoration” of 1660 the kings had lost the right to create 
new boroughs, just when that power might have been used to 
public advantage. 

Conditions had become unspeakably unfair and corrupt. 
Dunwich was under the waves of the North Sea, which had 
gradually encroached upon the land. But a descendant of an 
ancient owner of the soil possessed the right to row out with 
the sheriff on election day and choose himself as representative 
to Parliament for the submerged town. Old Sarum was once a 
cathedral city on the summit of a lofty hill; but new Sarum, 
or Salisbury, a few miles away on the plain, drew the popula¬ 
tion and the cathedral to itself until not a vestige of the old 
town remained. Then the grandfather of William Pitt bought 
the soil where Old Sarum had stood, and it was for this “ pocket 
borough” that the great Pitt entered Parliament. It was wit¬ 
tily said at the time, that the Pitt family had “an hereditary 
seat in the House of Commons.” So, Gatton was a park, and 
Corfe Castle a picturesque ruin, — each with a representative 
in Parliament. 

Then there were a great number of petty villages or little 
towns, with six or a dozen or fifty voters. Bosseney in Cornwall 
had three cottages. It had, however, nine voters, eight of them 


NEED OF REFORM IN 1815 


427 


in one family. And these voters elected two members to Parlia¬ 
ment. Even in large towns, the rules which determined the 
right to vote were often fantastic, and sometimes they shut out 
all but a fraction of the inhabitants. Portsmouth, with 46,000 
people, had only 103 voters; and in Weymouth, in 1826, the 
right to vote went with the right to share in the rents of certain 
ancient village property, — and so twenty persons, some of them 
paupers, voted because of their title each to one twentieth of a 
sixpence. 

Many of these places also, with few voters, were “pocket 
boroughs,” the voters being dependent upon a neighboring 
landlord and always electing his nominee. Large places had 
sometimes a like character. In 1828, at Newark, the Duke of 
Newcastle drove out 587 tenants who had ventured to vote 
against his candidate. Complaint was made in Parliament; 
but the Duke answered calmly, “Have I not a right to do 
what I like with my own?” So the Duke of Norfolk filled 
eleven seats; and fully two thirds of the whole House of Com¬ 
mons were really the appointees of great landlords. 

When not pocket boroughs, such places commonly were 
“rotten boroughs.” That is, the few voters sold the seats in Par¬ 
liament as a regular part of their private revenue. In 1766 
Sudbury advertised in the public press that its parliamentary 
seat was for sale to the highest bidder. Moreover, all voting 
was viva-voce, and the polls were held open for two weeks — 
so that there was every chance to sell and buy votes. 

The House of Commons had become hardly more represent¬ 
ative than the House of Lords. As the English historian 
Macaulay said, the “boasted representative system” of Eng¬ 
land had decayed into “ a monstrous system of represented ruins 
and unrepresented cities ” 

Progressive men had long seen that Parliament no longer 
represented the nation. The reason why no reform had been 
secured was that from 1689 to 1815 all energies went to the long 
French wars. In the twelve years (1763-1775), between the 
“Seven Years’ War” (p. 243) and the American Revolution, 


“ Pocket 
boroughs 


“ Rotten 
boroughs 


Reform 
checked 
by foreign 
war, 

1689-1815 


428 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 


George III 

opposes 

reform 


Relation to 
the Ameri¬ 
can Revolu¬ 
tion 


the Whig leaders did attempt wise changes. In 1766 William 
Pitt declared that Parliament must reform itself from within, 
or it would soon be reformed “with a vengeance” from without; 
and during the next few years many mass meetings urged 
Parliament to take action. 

But George III was determined to prevent reform. The 
war with America was connected closely with this determina¬ 
tion. George felt that his two indolent and gross predecessors 
had allowed kingly power to slip from their hands (p. 214). 
He meant to get it back, and to “be a king” in fact as well as 
in name, as his mother had urged him. To do this, he must 
be able to control Parliament. It would be easier to control 
it-as it was then — made up so largely of representatives of pocket 
boroughs — than to control a Parliament that really represented 
the nation. 

Therefore, when just at this time the Americans began to 
cry, “No taxation without representation,” King George felt it 
needful to put them down. If their claim was allowed, so 
must be the demand of Manchester and other new towns in 
England for representation in Parliament. But if the American 
demand could be made to seem a treasonable one, on the part 
of a distant group of rebels, then the king could check the 
movement in England also. This explains why King George 
took so active a part against America. 

The American victory seemed at first to have won an im¬ 
mediate victory for English freedom also. King George was 
forced to say that he was “pleased to appoint” among the 
leading ministers his chief enemy, Charles Fox, the special friend 
of America. And William Pitt the Younger at once took up the 
work of reform. Even before peace was declared, Pitt as¬ 
serted vehemently: Parliament “is not representative of the 
people of Great Britain. It is representative of nominal bor¬ 
oughs, and exterminated towns, of noble families, of wealthy 
individuals.” This condition, he declared, alone had made it 
possible for the government to wage against America “this 
unjust, cruel, wicked, and diabolical war.” 


REACTION AFTER 1815 


429 


In the years that immediately followed, Pitt introduced Reform 
three different bills for reform; but, before anything was accom- checked 
plished, came the French Revolution. This shelved all prospect fheXnch 
of success. In 1790 on a proposal for reform, the keynote of the Revolution 
opposition was struck by a Tory speaker who exclaimed that 
no wise man would select a hurricane season to repair his roof, 
however dilapidated. Soon the violence of the Revolutionists 
in France turned the whole English middle class definitely against 

change —and projects for reform slumbered for forty vears 
more (1790-1830). 

This unhappy check came just when the evils of the Indus¬ 
trial Revolution were becoming serious. But the Tory party, 
which carried England stubbornly to victory through the tremen¬ 
dous wars against Napoleon, was totally unfitted to cope with 
internal questions. Its leaders looked on every time-sanctioned 
abuse as sacred. Even after the fall of Napoleon, they refused 
to listen to proposals for change. 

The peace of 1815 was followed by a general business depres- Tory 
sion, — the first modern “ panic/’ Large parts of the working reaction 
classes had no work and no food. This resulted in labor riots Napoleonic 
and in political agitation. The Tory government met such wars 
movements by stern laws, forbidding public meetings (without 
consent of magistrates) under penalty of death; suspending 
habeas corpus (for the last time in England until the World War); 
and suppressing debating societies. 

This repressive policy, with the denial of free speech, had 
begun, properly enough, during the Napoleonic war, to guard 
against treason (as in the American Espionage Act during the 
recent World War); but it was carried to absurd and tyrannical 
extremes and was kept up after all need was gone. In 1812 two 
editors were condemned to a year’s imprisonment for saying 
;hat a rival paper had been guilty of exaggeration in calling 
the Prince of Wales an Adonis (a Greek of great beauty). Be¬ 
tween 1808 and 1821, ninety-four other journalists were pun¬ 
ished for libelous or seditious utterances, and twelve of them 
were condemned to transportation to penal colonies. Several 


430 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 


Some 

early 

reform 

movements 


of these condemnations came after the war. The government 
even prosecuted men for sedition who merely signed petitions 
for the reform of Parliament. 

Says Dr. Cross (.History of England, 869), “The hide-bound 
Tories in the Ministry lumped the Radicals, violent and peaceful, 
frenzied and sensible, without discrimination, as revolutionists/’ 
As in like action by reactionaries at all times in all lands, this 
was partly from honest ignorance, partly from cruel and un¬ 
scrupulous partisanship. A parliamentary committee solemnly 
charged the Radicals with intending to destroy or distribute 
private property. And the infamous “Oliver the Spy,” a 
government agent, “manufactured” false evidence, and stirred 
up risings among the poor, so as to have something to “ reveal ’’ 
to his credulous and unscrupulous employers. Juries usually 
refused to condemn men accused by the government on such 
evidence; but there were three executions and several trans¬ 
portations. The only measure adopted by the government to 
remedy the causes of disorder was a grant of £1,000,000, to build 
new churches, on the ground that the social disquiet was “ due 
to inadequate religious instruction” (instead of to inadequate 
food). 

The year 1821 marks the beginning of slow gains for reform. 
In 1825 parliament recognized the right of workingmen to unite 
in labor unions which had always before been treated as 
conspiracies. In 1828 political rights were restored to Protest 
tant dissenters (p. 211; — Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists); 
and the next year the same justice was secured for Catholics. 
The atrocious laws regarding capital punishment, too, were 
partially modified. The English penal code of the eighteenth 
century has been fitly called a sanguinary chaos.” Its worst 
faults, like the abuses of the rotten borough era in politics, 
were due to the English dislike for change. Whenever in the 
course of centuries a crime had become especially troublesome, 
some Parliament had fixed a death penalty for it, and no later 
Parliament had ever revised the code. In 1660 the number of 
“capital crimes” was fifty (three and a half times as many as 


THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 


431 


there were in New England at the same time under the much 
slandeied blue laws ), and by 1800 the number had risen 
to over two hundred. To steal a sheep, to snatch a handker¬ 
chief out of a woman’s hand, to cut down trees in an orchard, 
were all punishable by death. The reformer Romilly had long 
agitated for the repeal of these absurd and cruel laws; and in 
1823 Parliament struck the death penalty from 100 offenses. 

The year 1830 really begins the neiv era. George IV was suc¬ 
ceeded by his brother William IV, a more liberal-minded king; 
and the French Revolution of the same year, by its moderation 
and by its success, strengthened the reform party in England. 
A new Parliament was at once chosen; and the Whigs promptly 
introduced a motion to reform the representation. The prime 
minister was the Tory Wellington, the hero of Waterloo. He 
scorned the proposal, declaring that he did not believe the exist¬ 
ing representation could be improved ”! This speech cost 
him his popularity, both in and out of Parliament. He was 
compelled to resign; and the Whigs came into power with Earl 
Grey as prime minister. Grey was a stately English lord, whose 
eloquence at the trial of Warren Hastings forty years before 
had been celebrated by Macaulay. In the House of Commons 
the chief member of the ministry was Lord John Russell. He 
was the son of a duke, and his title of Lord at this time was only 
a “ courtesy title.” 

Lord Russell drew the bill for the reform of Parliament. 
In introducing the measure in the Commons, he pictured the 
amazement of a stranger who had gone to England to study the 
free representative government of which Englishmen boasted. 
The stranger would be shown, said Lord Russell, a ruined 
mound [p. 426], and be told that that mound sent two repre¬ 
sentatives to Parliament. He would be taken to a stone 
wall with three niches in it, and be told that those niches sent 
two representatives to Parliament. He would see a green park, 
with no sign of human habitation, and be told that that park 
sent two representatives to Parliament. And then he might 
chance to see populous towns, full of human enterprise and 


Struggle 
for par¬ 
liamentary 
reform 
begins 
in 1830 


Fall of 
Wellington 


The Whig 
leaders 


432 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 




A moderate 
reform 


industry, but he would be told that most of those towns sent 
no representatives to Parliament. 

The Bill was a very moderate one: It aimed only (1) to dis¬ 
tribute representation somewhat more fairly, and (2) to extend 
the franchise to a somewhat larger class of voters. The manner 
of voting was not affected, because Earl Grey objected to the 
ballot system. 


Representation was to be taken away from 56 “ rotten ” 
or “pocket” boroughs, and one member was to be taken 
from 30 more small places under 4000 people each. The 
seats gained in this way were given to new boroughs that 
needed representation. The suffrage was extended to all 
householders in the towns who owned or rented houses 
worth $50 a year, and to the whole “farmer” class in the 
country (p. 380). Farm laborers and the artisan class in 

towns (who lived in tenements or as lodgers) were still left 
out. 


The king 
forced to 
yield to his 
ministers 


Lords and 
Commons 


To the Tories this mild measure seemed to threaten the 
foundations of society. Fierce debates lasted month after 
month., In March of 1831 the ministry carried the “second 
reading” by a majority of one vote. It was plain that the 
Whig majority was not large enough to save the bill from hostile 
amendment. (A bill has to pass three “ readings,” and amend¬ 
ments are usually considered after the second.) The ministry 
decided to dissolve, and “appeal to the country” for better 
support. The king was bitterly opposed to this plan. A pas¬ 
sionate scene took place between him and his ministers, but 
he was forced to give way — and so, incidentally, it was settled 
that the ministry, not the king, dissolves Parliament. This 
means that Parliament really dissolves itself. 

The dissolution proved that the ministry meant to stand or 
fall on the bill. People showed their joy everywhere by illumi¬ 
nating windows; and a mob smashed the windows of Welling¬ 
ton’s castle because they were not lighted. The Whigs went 
into the campaign with the cry, “The Bill, the whole Bill, and 





Windsor Castle. 

A home of the British Sovereign. 















THE REFORM BILL OF 1832 


433 


nothing but the Bill.” Despite the unrepresentative nature 
of Parliament, they won an overwhelming majority. In June 
Lord Russell introduced the bill again. In September it passed 
the Commons, 345 to 239. Then the Lords calmly voted it 
down. 

One session of the second Parliament was wasted. The na¬ 
tion cried out passionately against the House of Lords. There was 
much violence, and England seemed on the verge of revolution. 

In December the same Parliament met for a new session. 
Lord Russell introduced the same bill for the third time. It 
passed the Commons by an increased majority. This time the 
Lords did not venture altogether to throw it out, but they 
tacked on hostile amendments. 

The king had always had power to make new peers at will. 
Lord Grey now demanded from the king authority to create 
enough new peers to save the bill. William refused. Grey 
resigned. For eleven days England had no government. The 
Tories tried to form a ministry, but could get no majority. 
Angry mobs stormed about the king’s carriage in the streets. 
It was feared that William and Wellington might try to over¬ 
throw the Whigs by a coup d'etat; and the Whig leaders went 
so far as secretly to prepare for civil war. Finally the king 
recalled the Whig ministry. 

William was still unwilling to create new peers, but he offered 
to use his personal influence to get the upper House to pass the 
bill. Happily, Earl Grey was firm to show where real sover¬ 
eignty lay; and finally the king was compelled to sign the paper 
(still exhibited in the British Museum) on which the Earl had 
written, “The King grants permission to Earl Grey ... to 
create such a number of new peers as will insure the passage of 
the Reform Bill.” This ended the struggle. It was not needful 
actually to make new peers. The Tory lords withdrew from the 
sessions, and the bill passed, June 4, 1832. 

Incidentally the long contest had settled two points in the 
constitution : 


The 

“ Eleven 
Days ” 


The Lords 
become an 
inferior 
House 


434 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 


It had shown how the Commons could control the Lords. 

Die ^King’s It had shown that the ministers are not the king’s ministry, except 
became the 4 n name > but that they are really the ministry, or servants, of 
ecut° n S 6X ~ ^ 6 H° use °f Commons. This principle has never since been 
threatened. The king acts only through the ministers. Even 
the speech he reads at the opening of Parliament is written for 
him, and without consulting him; and he cannot change a 
phrase in it. 

Excursus The way in which a change in ministry is brought about 
ministerial should be clearly understood. If the ministry is outvoted on 

government any matter of importance, it must resign. If it does not do so, 
and claims to be in doubt whether it has really lost its majority, 
its opponents will test the matter by moving a vote of “lack 

of confidence.” If this carries, the ministry takes it as a mandate 
to resign. 

There is only one alternative: If the ministry believes that 
the nation will support it, it may dissolve Parliament, and 
appeal to the country. If the new Parliament gives it a 
majority, it may go on. If not, it must at once give way to a 
new ministry. 

In form, the new ministry is chosen by the king; but in 
reality, he simply names those whom the will of the majority in the 
Commons has plainly pointed out. Indeed, he names only one 
man, whom he asks to “form a government.” This man be¬ 
comes prime minister, and selects the other ministers. In a 
parliamentary election, Englishmen really vote also for the 
next prime minister, just as truly, and about as directly, as we 
m this country vote for our President. If the king asks any 
one else to form a ministry but the man whom the Commons 
have accepted as their leader, probably the man asked will 
respectfully decline. If he tries to act, he will fail to get other 
strong men to join him, and his ministry will at once fail. If 
there is any leal uncertainty as to which one of several men is 
leader, the matter is settled by conference among the leaders, 
and the new ministry, of course, includes all of them. 


RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ” 


435 


A curious feature to an American student is that all this 
complex pi ocedure i ests only on custom — nowhere on a written 
constitution. Each member of the Cabinet is the head of some 
great department — Foreign Affairs, Treasury, War, and so on. 
The leading assistants in all these departments — some forty 
people now are included in the ministry. About twenty 
of the forty, — holding the chief positions, — make the inner 
circle which is called the Cabinet. 

The Cabinet is really “the Government,” and is often referred 
to by that title. It is the real executive; and it is also the “ steer- 
ing committee of the leyislature. In their private meetings the 
members of the Cabinet decide upon general policy. In Parlia¬ 
ment they introduce bills and advocate them. As ministers, 
they carry out the plans agreed upon. The prime minister 
corresponds in a way to a combination of the President and the 
Congressional Speaker in America. The Cabinet is what our 
cabinet would be if the President were merely its head, and if 
its members had seats in Congress with control over the order 
of business in that body, and with power to dissolve it and appeal 
to the people if Congress differed with it. 

The English dissolution, it should be seen clearly, is a sort 
of referendum. It gives the English people a better chance 
to express their will directly on particular important questions 
than we in America get — except in very rare instances. That 
is one reason why many Englishmen claim that their govern¬ 
ment— in spite of the “figurehead royalty” — is really more 
democratic than ours. The English government does respond 
more quickly to the will of the nation than ours does. 

Moreover, the union of executive and legislature fixes responsi¬ 
bility . In America, Congress passes a multitude of bills and 
appropriations, often by log-rolling processes, for which no 
party and no leading member will confess responsibility. In 
England, the ministry is responsible for every bill that is passed. 
Either the ministry introduces the bill to begin with, or at least 
permits or adopts it. If not willing to do that, it either defeats 
the bill, or is itself defeated. It cannot dodge responsibility 


The English 
referendum 


Responsi¬ 
bility for 
legislation 
clearly 
fixed 


436 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 


The 

English 
“ Speaker ” 


Progress in 
England 
and America 
in the 
thirties 
contrasted 


to the nation. Quite as much, too, it is responsible if it fails 
to introduce and pass bills desired by the nation. 

The king’s veto has disappeared in these changes. The last 
veto was one by Queen Anne in 1707. Now the only veto is a 
dissolution of Parliament by the ministry; and if the country 

is in favor of the “vetoed” measure, the next Parliament is 
certain to make it into law. 

The Speaker of the House of Commons, it should be under- 
stood, holds a very different position from the Speaker in 
America. Here he is the party leader of the majority party. 
Lntil 1911, he appointed committees so as to give complete 
control of Congress to his own party, and he still has great 
influence in such matters; and in debates, he recognizes members 
in such order as he and the leaders of his party have decided 
upon — not simply as they claim the floor. In England, the 
Speaker is absolutely non-partisan, — a true presiding “mode¬ 
rator,” bound to treat all members and parties impartially. 

No authority in England can set aside a law of Parlia¬ 
ment, as our Supreme Court sometimes does with laws of 
Congress. There is no possibility of a deadlock between 
legislature and executive; nor, since the “mending” of 
the House of Lords in 1914 (p. 480), can there be any long- 
continued deadlock between the two Houses of the'Legis¬ 
lature. An election is followed by the immediate meeting 
of the new Parliament, while in the United States a new 
Congress does not meet, commonly, until thirteen months 
after its election. The English election, too, is very often 
to decide some particular important question. The Eng¬ 
lish people can express their will in such an election, and 
eel sure that it will be made promptly into law. 

This is the place to note certain relations between American 
and English Democracy. The First Reform Bill in England 
was one episode in a general period of democratic advance. The 
Second French Revolution and its results for Europe have been 
mentioned. In America, too, much progress was made at 


ENGLISH AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 437 

about the same time. All the original States had shut out large 
classes from voting (more than half all the men on an average) 
and still largei classes from holding office, by graded property 
qualifications. But in 1821, fifteen of the twenty-four States 
had manhood suffrage, and the number was steadily growing. 
Public officials, too, and the “ gentleman ” class, were just ceas¬ 
ing to wear powdered hair, knee breeches, and silk stockings, 
to mark themselves off from the common people. 

Moreover, the wider franchise of the American States was 
being used more directly than at first. In 1800 only six of the 
sixteen commonwealths of that day chose presidential electors 
by the voters directly; but, after 1832, South Carolina was the 
only State that continued to choose them by the legislature. 
The electors, too, were no longer supposed to be a select coterie 
who were to “refine” the popular judgment by their own higher 
intelligence. They had become — what they have since 
remained — “mere letter carriers,” to register the will of the 
people. 

In England the nation politely shelved the old hereditary, 
monarchic executive by taking over its powers through a commit¬ 
tee of the elected Parliament. In America the people captured 
the old indirectly elective, aristocratic executive, by making it 
directly responsive to the popular will. The victory of Jackson, 
in the election of 1828, marks this change. He was called the 
“chosen Tribune of the people.” Since that time, the President 
has been more truly representative of the people’s will than 
Congress has. One result of the contrast between English and 
American democracy is that, while the royal veto has utterly 
vanished, the Presidential veto has steadily grown in importance. 

Thus we have two types of democratic government in 
the world, both developed by English-speaking peoples. 
They differ from each other mainly in regard to the exec¬ 
utive. In the United States, the executive is a president, 
or governor, independent of the legislature. The other 
republics upon this continent have adopted this American 




438 


ENGLAND, 1815-1914 


type. In England, the executive has become practically 
a steering committee of the legislature. This type is the 
one adopted by most of the free governments of the world 
outside America. 

Exekcise. — With the last pages, review pp. 209-214, on the Revo¬ 
lution of 1688 and the beginning of cabinet government. 

For Further Reading. — The most brilliant story is Justin 
McCarthy s Epoch of Reform, 25—83. Rose’s Rise of Democracy, 9—52, 
is excellent. See also one or more of the following: Hazen’s Europe 
Since 1815, 409-415, 428-438; Beard’s English Historians, 538-548, 
549-565, and 594-607 (extract from Bagehot’s English Constitution ); 
Robinson and Beard’s Readings, II, 239-245; Cheyney’s Readings, 
679-690. Weyman’s Chipping Borough {fiction) shows forcefully the 
mob influence in 1832 and reflects faithfully the snobbishness of the 
middle-class Liberals of the time. 


CHAPTER XXIX 

POLITICAL REFORM IN THE VICTORIAN AGE 

The First Reform Bill introduced a new era, which we call 
the Victorian age. In 1837 William IV was succeeded by his 
niece, Victoria, whose reign filled the next sixty-four years. 
Victoria came to the throne a modest, high-minded girl of 
eighteen years. She was not brilliant, or particularly intellec¬ 
tual; but she grew into a worthy, sensible, good woman, of 
splendid moral influence, deeply loved by her people and ad¬ 
mired by all the world. In 1840 she married Albert, the ruler 
of a small German principality; and their happy, pure, and 
lovely family life, blessed with nine children, was an example 
new to European courts for generations. 

Victoria kept willingly the position of a “constitutional” 
sovereign; but, on some critical occasions, she did induce her 
ministers to moderate their intended policy. The most notable 
instance of this sort was in 1861, when her suggestion and in¬ 
fluence softened a communication from the English government 
to the United States which otherwise might have driven the 
two countries into war — the Mason and Slidell incident at 
the opening of our Civil War. 

The Victorian age was a period of peace, prosperity, 
refinement of morals, intellectual glory, democratic advance, 
and of tremendous expansion of civilization in space. To 
appreciate this progress of the last two thirds of the nine¬ 
teenth century, it is needful to grasp conditions when the 
Victorian era began. The world was still a small, despotic 
world, far more remote from the great progressive world 
of 1900 than from the world of 1600. Civilization held 
only two patches on the globe, — western Europe and 
eastern North America. In the latter, the real frontier 

439 


The 

“ Victorian 
age ” 


World con¬ 
ditions at its 
opening 




440 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


England’s 

world- 

leadership 



of the United States reached less than one third the way 
across the continent, and politics and society were dominated 
by the slave power. Europe knew “Germany” only as a 
pious aspiration of revolutionaries, and “Italy” as a 
“geographical expression.” Metternich stood guard over 

central Europe. On the 
east hung Russia, an 
inert mass, in the chains 
of her millions of serfs. 
Under the contemptible 
Orleans monarchy, 
France was taking 
breath between spas¬ 
modic revolutions. 
England herself had 
only in part thrown off 
the long oligarchic rule 
of her landlord class. 
The rest of the globe 
hardly counted : a fringe 
of Australia held a con¬ 
vict camp; eastern Can¬ 
ada was a group of 
jealous petty provinces, 
learning to agitate in a 
disorderly fashion for 
self-government; Span¬ 
ish America, prostrate in anarchy, gave as yet little hope 
of its coming renaissance; Japan was to sleep a generation 
longer; while the two largest continents were undisturbed 
in their native barbarism, except for England’s grasp upon 
the hem of India and South Africa. 

Throughout the century England remained the most powerful 
and the richest country in the world, — leading especially in 
manufacturing, in commerce, in sea-power, and in literature. 


Victoria Taking the Coronation Oath. 
After the painting by Landseer at 
Windsor Palace. 











REFORM WITHOUT REVOLUTION 


441 


In this last respect, English leadership is marked by a long list 
of famous names. True, Burns, Byron, and Scott belong to 
the age of the Georges; Wordsworth and Macaulay, too, had 
begun their activity before the accession of Victoria. But 
Browning, Tennyson, Dickens, “ George Eliot,” and Thackeray 
are only a part of the dazzling Victorian galaxy in poetry and 
fiction, while such names as Darwin, Tyndal, and Huxley sug¬ 
gest some of the services of Victorian scientists to the world. 
During the same period, the literary charm of Carlyle, Ruslan, 
and William Morris enabled them to preach effectively to all 
English-speaking peoples their new views of life and of art. 

In Parliament, reform crowded upon reform. The First Re¬ 
form Bill gave votes to 650,000 people — or to one out of six 
grown men. This was five times as liberal as the French fran¬ 
chise after the Revolution of 1830. Political power in England 
had passed from a narrow, selfish landlord oligarchy to a broad 
enlightened middle-class aristocracy. For more than forty years 
(1790-1830), Parliament had openly been contemptuous of 
public opinion. Thenceforward it has always been promptly 
responsive to that force. 

The great political parties soon took new names. The name 
Conservative now began to replace Tory, and Liberal replaced 
Whig. During the next forty-two years (1832-1874), the Tories, 
or Conservatives, were in power less than one sixth of the time. 
After those forty years, they, too, adopted a liberal policy 
toward the working classes, and secured longer leases of power. 1 


After 1832, 
England a 
middle-class 
aristocracy 


Liberals and 
Conserva¬ 
tives 


1 Reference Table of Administrations : 


Conserv- 


1830-34 . 
1834-35 . 

Liberals 

Grey 

atives 

Peel 

1835-41 . 

1841-46 . 

Melbourne 

Peel 

1846-52 . 
1852 . . 

Russell 

Derby 

1852-58 . 

1858-59 . 

f (1) Aberdeen 
[ (2) Palmerston 

Derby 


Conserv- 

Liberals atives 


1859-66 . \ 

\ (1) Palmerston 
[ (2) Russell 

1866-68 . 
1868-74 . 

Gladstone 

Derby 

1874-80 . 
1880-85 . 

Gladstone 

Disraeli 

1885-86 . 
1886 . . 

Gladstone 

Salisbury 

1886-92 . 


Salisbury 











442 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


Disraeli 

and 

Gladstone 


The man who did most to educate the Conservatives into 
this new attitude toward social reform was Disraeli, the real 
leader of the party through the third quarter of the nine¬ 
teenth century. By birth Disraeli was a Jew. He was an 
author, and a man of brilliant genius. Some critics called him 

“ a Conservative with 
Radical opinions,” while 
others insisted that he 
had no principles in pol¬ 
itics. Carlyle expressed 
the general amazement at 
Disraeli’s attitude and at 
his success in drawing his 
party with him, — “a 
superlative Hebrew con¬ 
jurer, spell-binding all the 
great lords, great parties, 
great interests, and lead¬ 
ing them by the nose, like 
helpless, mesmerized, som- 
nambulant cattle.” 

An even more impor¬ 
tant figure was Disraeli’s 
great adversary, William 
E. Gladstone. Gladstone 
entered Parliament in 
1833, at the first election after the Reform BUI, and soon proved 
himself a powerful orator and a master of debate. He was 



Gladstone in old age. — From a photo¬ 
graph. 


Reference Table of Administration: — Cont. 


Conserv- 

Liberals atives 


1892-95 . 
1895-1906 

1906 . . 


(1) Gladstone 

(2) Rosebery 

f (1) Salisbury 
1 (2) Balfour 
Campbell-Bannerman 
Asquith (to 1915) 


Conserv- 

Liberals atives 

(1915—1918 A coalition war-ministry, 
led by Lloyd George] 
1919—1922 A coalition ministry, 
mainly Conservatives, 
led by Lloyd George 
1922- .... Bonar Law 











GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI 


443 


then an extreme Tory. By degrees he grew Liberal, and thirty 
years later he succeeded Lord Russell as the unchallenged leader 
of that party. For thirty years more he held that place, — 
four times prime minister, — and at the close of his long career 
he had become an advanced Radical. His early friends accused 
Gladstone bitterly as inconsistent or treacherous; but the world 
at large accepted his own simple explanation of his changes, — 
I was brought up to distrust liberty; I learned to believe in 
it.” For the last quarter-century of his life he was widely 
revered as England’s “Grand Old Man.” 


After this general survey, we turn to some of the details 
of England’s progress in the Victorian age. 

The Tories at once accepted the result of 1832, as the Conserva¬ 
tive party in England always does when a new reform has 
once been forced upon them. But they planted themselves upon 
it as a finality. Even the Whigs, who were by no means demo¬ 
crats, agreed in this “finality” view. In the Parliament of 
1837 a Radical moved a resolution in favor of a further ex¬ 
tension of the franchise; but Lord Russell, speaking for the 
ministry, condemned it savagely, and only twenty-two votes 
supported it. A few eager Radicals for a time kept up a cry 
for a more liberal franchise, but soon they gave up the contest, 
to take part in the great social legislation of the period. 

But outside Parliament, and outside the sovereign middle 
class, lay the masses of workingmen, who knew that the victory 
of 1832 had been won largely by their sympathy and public 
demonstrations, and who felt that they had been cheated of 
the fruits. 1 This class continued restless; but they lacked 
leadership, and, in ordinary times, their claims secured little 
attention. At first, disappointed in politics, the workingmen 
turned to trade-unions, and sought to get better wages and 
shorter hours by strikes. As in America at the same time, an 
attempt was made at a nation-wide organization, — which 
in 1834 enrolled nearly a million members. But employers 


Working- 

class 

discontent 
after 1832 


The 

trade-union 

movement 


1 There is an admirable treatment in Rose’s Rise of Democracy , ch. ; i. 


444 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


The 

Chartist 

agitation 


united, dismissed all union workmen, and, aided by the conser¬ 
vative courts, stamped out the movement. A strike by a union 
the courts held a “conspiracy.” Under medieval common-law 
practice they transported six labor leaders to the Australian penal 
settlements, and for many years the labor movement lay crushed. 

Then the Radicals turned again to politics. There were 
two marked periods of agitation at intervals of nearly twenty 
years, — just before 1848 and again before 1867. The earlier 
is the famous Chartist movement. Even before the First Re¬ 
form Bill, there had been an extensive agitation for a more radi¬ 
cal change, and the extremists had fixed upon six points to 
struggle for: (1) manhood suffrage, (2) equal electoral districts, 
(3) abolition of all property qualification for membership in 
Parliament, (4) payment of members, (5) the ballot, and (6) an¬ 
nual elections. In 1837 the Radicals renewed their agitation 
and these “Six Points” were embodied in the Charter they de¬ 
manded. Excitement grew for years/ and in the forties many 
Chartists looked forward to rebellion. Men drilled and armed • 
and the government was terrified into taking stringent precam 


ive of the six points have since become law, and the 
unimportant sixth point is no longer asked for. But to 
the prosperous English Liberal of 1840 these Chartist de¬ 
mands seemed to promise revolution and anarchy One 
reverend writer opposed the demands by such arguments 
as these: “What would you gain by universal suffrage? 
... All workmen would become politicians . . . [andl 
spen tieir time ... in what would only increase their 
poverty. I ote by ballot would be nothing but a law for 
rogues and knaves, nothing but a cloak for . . . hypoc¬ 
risy. . The Chartist doctrine of equality is diametrically 

opposed to nature and to the word of God.” (For equally 
absurd opposition in America to manhood suffrage, twenty 
years earlier, see West’s American People, pp. 376-377, 477.) 

1 Charles KingsIey ’ s Alton Locke is a powerful story of this period. 








THE CHARTISTS 


445 


“Forty-eight” was the critical year. The reform was set 
back by the English revulsion against the violent revolution 
going on upon the continent. The Chartists adopted a resolu¬ 
tion, “All labor shall cease till the people’s Charter becomes 
the law of the land.” This was the first attempt at a national 
strike for political purposes. But the plan for monster demon¬ 
strations, with great petitions and processions, fizzled out, and 
the “year of revolutions” saw no disturbance in England that 
called for more than a few extra policemen. 

The next agitation took its rise from - the suffering of the 
unemployed while the American Civil War cut off the supply 
of cotton for English factories, and it was strengthened by the 
hard-won victory of the democratic North in that war over the 
aristocratic South. This time no one dreamed of force. The 
agitators could count safely on winning, through the rivalry of 
the two political parties. The Liberals, under Russell, intro¬ 
duced a reform measure, but lost power because they did not 
go far enough. Then, said Disraeli, cynically, “If the country 
is bound to have reform, we might as well give it to them” — 
and stay in office; and the “ Second Reform Bill ” was finally 
passed in 1867 by a Conservative ministry. 


The Second 
Reform 
Bill, 1867: 
England a 
democracy 


Lord Derby was prime minister; but, as he sat in the Lords, 
it was necessary to intrust some Commoner with special 
leadership in the lower House. This task fell upon Disraeli, 
who became (as is usually the case under such conditions) 
the real genius of the administration. 


All householders (owners or renters) and all lodgers who paid 
ten pounds a year for their rooms , became voters. Thus this 
bill gave the franchise to the artisan class, raising the number of 
voters to over three million, or to something over half the adult 
male population. John Stuart Mill aroused no little amuse¬ 
ment by proposing votes for women. 

The unskilled laborers in town and country, and the male 
house-servants, still had no votes; but England had taken a 
tremendous step toward democracy. This victory of 1867, 


446 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


The Third 
Reform 
Bill, 1884 


Other 
reforms 
in politics 


like that of 1832, was followed by a period of sweeping legis¬ 
lation for social reforms, — mainly in Gladstone’s Liberal 
ministry, 1868-1874 (p. 456). Then, after a Conservative 
ministry, led by Disraeli and chiefly concerned with foreign 
matters (p. 458), Gladstone took office again, and the “ Third 
Reform Bill” (1884) in large measure enfranchised the unskilled 
laborer and the servant class. 


This raised the electorate to over six millions, and (except 
for unmarried sons, without property, living in the father’s 
family, and for laborers living in very cheap houses) it gave 
votes to practically all self-supporting men. The next year. 
Parliament did away with the chief remaining inequalities in 
representation by dividing England into parliamentary districts, 
like our congressional districts. 


It is well to fix clearly the nature of these three Reform 
Bills. The First (1832) enfranchised the middle class 
(merchants, shopkeepers, professional men, etc., besides 
the gentry, freeholders, and members of borough corpora¬ 
tions, who had the franchise before). The Second (1867) 
enfranchised the artisans in the towns. The Third (1884) 
enfranchised unskilled laborers, leaving less than one 
seventh the adult males without a vote. 




Four other reforms in this period made English politics clean 
and honest. 

In 18 iO the secret ballot was introduced. The form adopted 
was the excellent one known as the Australian ballot, from 
its use in Victoria. Most of the States of our Union have 
since then adopted the same model. 

Between 1855 and 1870, the civil service was thoroughly re¬ 
formed In earlier years, public offices had been given to reward 
political partisans, in as disgraceful a degree as ever marked 
American politics. But since 1870, appointments have always 
been made after competitive examinations, and there has been 
no removal of appointed officials for party reasons. England had 
completed this great reform before the United States began it. 




ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 


447 


In 1868 Parliament turned over to the courts the trial of contested 
elections. In Stuart times, when the kings sometimes attempted 
to control the composition of Parliament, it was needful for 
the Commons themselves to have the right to decide between 
two men who claimed the same seat. That need had passed 
away; and the decision of contested elections in Parliament, 
as in our legislatures still, was often made by a strict “party 
vote, without regard to the merits of the opposing claims. 
In transferring these cases to the courts, England led the way 
in a reform which other free countries will in time adopt. 

Bribery in elections, direct and also indirect, was effectively 
checked by the “ Corrupt Practices Prevention Act ” of 1883, drawn 
along lines more recently adopted in the United States. 

The extension of the franchise in the three great “Reform” 
bills applied only to parliamentary elections. But local gov¬ 
ernment also called for reform. It had been highly aristocratic. 
It was not centralized, as in France; but each local unit was 
in the hands of the local aristocracy. 

The two rural units, the counties and the parishes, were alto¬ 
gether controlled by the country gentry, without even the form 
of an election. (1) The crown appointed a Board of Justices 
of the Peace, for life, from the most important gentlemen of each 
county, and this Board managed all matters of county government, 
acting both as judges and as county commissioners. (2) Each 
parish was ruled by a vestry of twelve gentlemen who formed a close 
corporation, holding office for life, and themselves filling vacancies. 

In the towns, the government was usually vested in a mayor 
and a council, who were virtually self-elected for life. This town 
rule had long been indescribably corrupt. The “corporation,” 
as the government was called, never represented any large part 
of the inhabitants. The members spent public funds as they 
pleased, — largely in salaries to themselves, and in entertain¬ 
ments and state dinners, — and they rented public property to 
one another at nominal prices, while all the pressing needs of 
the great and growing city populations were ignored. 


Local 

government 
reform' 


The need 


448 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


Reform in 
town 

government 
begins 
in 1835 


County 

Councils 


The corrupt town government was the first part of local 
government to be reformed. Earl Grey’s ministry in 1833 ap¬ 
pointed “a commission of inquiry”; and, after the report of 
the commission in 1835, Lord Russell introduced a Municipal 
Reform Bill. The measure provided that 183 boroughs (in¬ 
dicated by name) should each have a municipal council elected by 
all who paid local taxes. The Lords went wild with dismay at 
this “ gigantic innovation,” and by votes of 6 to 1, they amended 
nearly every clause in the bill so as to make it worthless. At 
this time, O Connell, the Irish agitator, started a movement 
to abolish the House of Lords. “It is impossible,” said he, 
that it should last, that such a set of stupid, ignorant, 
half-mad fops and coxcombs should continue so to lord it.” 
The Commons refused the amendments; and after a four 


months struggle the Lords yielded. From time to time, through 
the century, new towns were added to the list, as need arose, 
and finally, in 1882, it was provided that any town might adopt 
this form of government for itself. 

The municipal reform of 1835 was immediate and success¬ 
ful. . English town government ever since has been honest, 
efficient, and enlightened, — a model to all other democratic 
countries, and a full half-century ahead of America. The 
best citizens serve in the town councils. The appointed officials, 
like the city engineer, city health officer, and so on, are men of 
high professional standing, who serve virtually for life and are 
never appointed or removed for political purposes. The 
government costs less and gives more than in American cities, 
and the scandals that disgrace our city governments are un¬ 
known. The form of government is that known as the “ Council 
plan : the mayor is hardly more than a presiding officer. He 
is elected by the council, and he has no veto. The cities own 
their own water and lighting and street car systems to a much 
greater degree than in America. 

In the rural units, reform did not come until 1888 and 1894. 
In the counties and parishes, the gentry rule was honest, but 
it broke down 111 the nineteenth century, under the burden of* 



ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 


449 


new duties. Finally, in 1888, the Conservative ministry of 
Lord Salisbury passed the County Council Bill, providing for 
the election of a Council for each county by all local taxpayers. 
A new interest in local affairs followed, and the elected Councils 
began to change the face of England by their energetic govern¬ 
ment. Six years later, the last ministry of Gladstone extended 
this movement by the still more important Parish Councils Bill. 

These two laws have made local government in the rural units 
thoroughly democratic. The elements are four. (1) The parish 
has a primary assembly ( parish meeting). (2) Parishes with 
more than three hundred people have also an elective Parish 
Council. (3) Larger subdivisions of the county, known as 
Districts, have elective District Councils. And (4) at the 
top is the elective County Council. The powers of all these 
local bodies are very great. From the beginning of these re¬ 
forms, women have had the right to vote for local Councils and 
to sit in them, on the same terms as men. 

London had not been included in the previous municipal 
reform acts, but in 1888 it was made an “ administrative county.” 
Since 1888 the representative County Council of London, ruling 
six million people, has been one of the most interesting govern¬ 
ing bodies in the world. 

The sixteenth century in England had seen a new ab¬ 
solutism rise upon the ruins of the old feudalism and the 
old church. The struggle of the seventeenth century had 
resulted in replacing this absolutism with representative 
government highly aristocratic in character. Then, by 
natural decay, this had hardened into the narrow oligarchy 
of the eighteenth century. The nineteenth century saw 
the victory of democracy — and by peaceful evolution, with¬ 
out bloody revolution. 

For Further Reading. — On the Second and Third Bills, interest¬ 
ing treatments are to be found in Hazen, Rose, McCarthy’s History of 
Our Own Times, and in the younger McCarthy’s England under Glad¬ 
stone. Beard’s English Historians, 566-581 and 582-593, is admirable. 
On the Chartists, Rose, 84-146; Hazen, 446-450. 


Parish 

and 

District 

councils 


The London 

County 

Council 


CHAPTER XXX 


SOCIAL REFORM IN THE VICTORIAN AGE 


Social 
reforms 
just after 
the First 
Reform 
Bill 


The thirties were a period of humanitarian agitation, as well 
as of democratic advance. In England, Charles Dickens wrote 
his moving stories of the abuses in the courts, the schools, the 
factories, the shops. Carlyle thundered against injustice, in 
Chartism and in Past and Present; Mrs. Browning pleaded for 
the abused children in touching poems (p. 378). Public men 

like Wilberforce, Romilly, and Shaftesbury, urged reform in 
Parliament. 


u So ln America, the thirties saw the beginning of the 
“woman’s rights” movement, including demands for 
coeducation, equal property rights with men, and the 
right to vote. Massachusetts founded the first public 
hospital for the insane. Special schools soon appeared for 
t ie blind and the deaf. The temperance movement and 
the abolition movement got fairly under way. 


After carrying the Reform Bill of 1832, Earl Grey dissolve, 
Parliament. The new Parliament, chosen by the enlarge, 
citizen-body, contained a huge majority for the Liberals 
Earl Grey s ministry remained in office for three years more - 
years packed with social reforms. It freed the Negro slave 
in the West India colonies, paying the colonists for their loss. 
It began to free the hardly less miserable “white slaves” of thi 

/ lg t ‘ S ,’ fa T C *° ry rr n r ■ b / a neW era of factory kgislatioi 

T' 451). It freed the Irish peasants from the obligation of pay. 
mg tithes to support the Episcopalian clergy, whom they hated 

1 Special Report : Wilberforce, and his work for emancipation. 

450 









SOCIAL REFORM IN ENGLAND 451 

It swept away some more excesses of the absurd and bloody 
criminal code (p. 430). It abolished the pillory and the whip¬ 
ping post, and began to reform the foul and inhuman conditions 
in the prisons. It began the reform of local government 
(p. 447); and it made a first step toward public education, by 
a national grant of £20,000 a year to church schools. 

In 1839, after strenuous struggles, this grant was in¬ 
creased to £30,000. A member of the Ministry, in argu¬ 
ing for that pitiful increase, reminded Parliament that it 
had just voted £70,000, without a murmur, to build new 
stables of the Queen. 

The most important legislation of the century was the labor 
and factory legislation. Gradually Englishmen awakened to 
the ugly fact that the new factory system was ruining, not 
only the souls, but also the bodies of hundreds of thousands 
of women and children, so as to threaten national degeneracy. 
In 1833, among the first acts of the “Reformed parliament,” 
Lord Ashley (p. 377) secured a factory law limiting the work of 
children (under thirteen years) to forty-eight hours a week, 
and that of “young people” (from thirteen to eighteen years) 
to sixty-nine hours a week (or twelve hours on five days and 
nine hours on Saturdays). Some provision was made also 
for educating children and for a few holidays; and the employ¬ 
ment of children under nine (!) was strictly forbidden. 

The bill was fought bitterly by most of the manufacturers, 
who urged (1) that it would oblige them to reduce wages and 
raise prices; (2) the hypocritical plea that it took from the 
workingman his “freedom of contract,” or right to sell his 
labor as he chose; and (3) that it would cost England her in¬ 
dustrial leadership among nations, and drive capital away to 
countries where there was no such mischievous legislation. 
But public opinion had at last been aroused, and the bill became 
law. Fortunately, it provided for salaried “ factory inspectors ” ; 
and these officers, after many prosecutions, compelled the em¬ 
ployers to obey it. 


The Factory 
Act of 
1833 


452 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


The 
Factory 
Act of 
1847 


Woman and 
child labor 
in mines 


Later 

factory 

acts 


In 1847 a still greater factory law limited the labor of women 
and “young persons” (between 14 and 16) to ten hours a day, 
with only half-time for “children” (between 9 and 14) and 
with provision for schooling in the vacant half of the day. 
Indirectly, this law fixed a limit upon the hours of men also, 
because, after the women and children had all left a factory' 
it was not profitable to keep the machinery going. Thus ten 
hours became the factory working-day many years before this 
goal was reached generally in America. 

The legislation of 1833 applied only to factories for weaving 
goods. But in 1840, a parliamentary commission made public 
the horrible condition of women and children in the coal mines. 

stunted, crippled, misshapen wretches, living in brutal in¬ 
decency. Children began work underground at five or six 
years of age, and rarely saw daylight. Girls and women worked 
almost naked among the men. The working hours were from 
twelve to fourteen a day; and in the wet underground pas¬ 
sages, two or three feet high, women were compelled to crawl 
back and forth on hands and knees, hauling great carts of 
coal by chains fastened to their waists. A law at once forbade 
underground labor by women and children. 

The principles of factory legislation were soon extended 
to other lines of manufactures. Of the long series of later 
acts, the most important are Asquith’s Factory Act of 1895 (which, 
along with other wholesome provisions, prohibits the em¬ 
ployment of any child under eleven years of age), 1 and the great 
Act of 1901, which revised and advanced the factory legislation 
of the preceding century. Since 1901, no child under 12 can 
be employed at all in any sort of factory or workshop; and for 
employees between 12 and 16, a physician must certify that 
there is no danger of physical injury from the employment. 
Nvght work for women and children is strictly forbidden. 

17 K :- F ~ Jading. — Gibbin’s Industrial History of England, 175- 
6, and Cheyney s Industrial and Social History, 224-262. Vivid statements 
are given also in Justin McCarthy's Epoch of Reform, “ 

of EnZZ: £55? “ “* Ninetemth CmiWy ' aDd “ history 


CORN LAWS AND FREE TRADE 


453 


These acts have been accompanied by many provisions to 
secure good lighting and ventilation in factories and work¬ 
shops, and to prevent accidents from machinery, by compelling 
the employer to fence it in with every possible care. In 1880 
an Employers’ Liability Act made it easy for a workman to 
secure compensation for any injury for which he was not him¬ 
self to blame; and in 1897 a still more generous Workman’s 



Compensation Act secured such compensation for the workmen 
by a simple process without lawsuits. These acts have been 
copied in the last few years by progressive 
States in our Union. 

Lord Grey retired in 1834; but his Liberal 
successors began the modern liberal policy 
toward the English colonies by a new “ Gov¬ 
ernment Act” for Canada in 1839 (p. 470), 
and introduced penny postage in 1840. Pre¬ 
vious to this, the charge on letters had been The First Adhe- 
very high, sometimes several shillings, and st\mp P °i840 E 
had varied according to distance and to the The design was 
size and shape of the letter. It had involved unchanged, 

cumbrous calculations for each letter, and the 
amount had been collected in cash by the carriers. When the 
change was suggested, the postal authorities protested earnestly 
and sincerely — as conservative officials still protest against 
every new reform — declaring that under the proposed plan the 
carriers would never be able to handle the letters, or that it 
would cost ruinous sums to do so. Rarely indeed has a simple 
change done more for the well-being of the poorer classes. 

The Conservative ministry of Peel (1841-1846) was marked 
by the abolition of the Corn Laws. Those laws had put an 
excessively high tariff on imported grain. Their aim was to 
encourage the raising of foodstuffs in England, so as to make 
sure of a home supply; and during the Napoleonic war this 
policy perhaps had been justifiable. The money profits, 
however, had always gone mainly to the landlords, who enacted 
the laws in Parliament and who raised rents high enough to 


Workman’s 
Compensa¬ 
tion Act 


Other 

reforms 

before 

1840 


The old 
“ Corn 
Laws ” 




454 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 



* 


The Irish 
Famine 
forces 
free trade 
in food 


confiscate the benefits which the high prices might otherwise 
have brought to the farmer. After the rapid growth in popu¬ 
lation had made it impossible for England to produce enough 
food for her people anyway, the landlords’ monopoly of bread- 
stuffs had become an intolerable burden upon the starving 
multitudes. 

The needless misery among this class finally aroused great 
moial indignation. In 1838 the Anti-Corn-Law League was 
organized by Richard Cohdeu and John Bright , and for years 
it carried on a wonderful campaign of education through the 
press and by means of great public meetings. The manu¬ 
facturing capitalists were made to see that the Corn Laws 
taxed them, indirectly, for the benefit of the landlords — since 
to enable their workmen to live, they had to pay higher wages 
than would otherwise have been necessary. And so the selfish 
interests of this influential manufacturing class were thrown to 
the side of this particular reform. 

Finally, in 1846, a huge calamity was added to the same side 
of the scales. This was the Irish Famine. The population of 
Ireland had been increasing rapidly, until it amounted to over 
eight millions. The greater part were poor peasants, living in 
misery, with the potato for almost their sole food. Suddenly, 
in 1846, in a night, came a blight that ruined the crop for the 
year; and, despite generous gifts of food from all the world, 
two million people died of starvation. 1 

The government in England had already been considering a 
reform of the Corn Laws, and this terrible event in Ireland 
forced it to act. As John Bright afterward said for the re¬ 
formers, “ Famine itself, against whom we fought, took up arms 
in our behalf. Peel decided to sweep away the tax and to let 
food in free; and, despite bitter opposition from the landlords 
of his own party, the reform was adopted. 

One interesting result of the bitter feeling of the Tory 
landlords was the passing of the factory act of 1847 (p. 452). 

] A mi ^ lon more emigrated to America in the next four years (1847-1850), 
this was the first large immigration of Catholic Irish to this country. 


FREE TRADE ADOPTED 


455 



That much needed reform was vehemently opposed by man¬ 
ufacturing Liberals, like John Bright, who believed it would 
ruin English industry. But the landlord Tories, who had 
just been beaten by Bright on the Corn Laws, grimly took 
their revenge by forcing this other reform upon the manu¬ 
facturing capitalists. The whole story shows that neither 
division of the capitalist class could see any needs of the 
working class that conflicted with their own unjust profits. 


The Parliament Buildings from across the Thames. They were com¬ 
pleted in 1852, after the “ Old Parliament Building ” had been destroyed 
by fire, in 1834. Westminster Abbey is visible in the distance. 

Peel was soon overthrown by a party revolt, but the Liberals 
took up the work and carried it farther. They abolished one 
protective tariff after another, until, by 1852 , England had be¬ 
come a “free trade” country. 

This policy was never afterward seriously questioned in 
England (whose manufactures and commerce have prospered 
so marvelously under it) until 1903. For some years preceding 
that date, to be sure, some of the Conservative party talked of 
a policy of “fair trade/’ or a system of retaliatory tariffs against 
countries whose tariffs shut out British manufactures; and 
finally, in 1903, Joseph Chamberlain, a member of the Con- 


Free trade 
adopted 
as a policy 





456 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


The first 
interna¬ 
tional 
exhibition 


Gladstone’s 

reform 

administra¬ 

tion, 

1868-1874 


servative cabinet, declared that the time had come for England 
to adopt a policy of that kind and at the same time to secure 
closer trade relations with her colonies. In 1909 and 1910 the 
Conservative party made their campaigns on this issue — in 
opposition to the radical internal tax reform of Lloyd George 
(p. 478); but so far (1919), they have not won the nation. 

In 1851 ’ mainI y through the influence of Prince Albert, came 
tie great Crystal Palace Exhibition. This was the first of 
many international exhibits of industries and arts, with the 
1 ea of bringing the peoples of the world to understand one 
another better and to profit by one another’s progress in art 
and industry. It was hailed by Queen Victoria, too hopefully 
as a guarantee of lasting peace. Six million visitors attended 
the exhibit; and conservative Englishmen deplored the flooding 
ol England with foreign immorality ! 


For some twenty years after the Corn-Law reform, England 
saw httle legal reform aside from the extensions of free trade 
and of the factory legislation already mentioned. 

Then, after the enfranchisement of the artisan class by the 

f 6 OTm r®l° f 18 V Came Stone’s great reform adminis- 
1 a ion ( 8 1874), which rivals in importance that of Earl 

Grey in the thirties. In 1870 it established alongside the old 
private and parochial schools a new system of public schools, 
or, as the English call them. Board Schools.' It abolished pur¬ 
chase of office in the army, and completed the civil service re- 
form (p. 446). It introduced the ballot (p. 446). It opened 
English universities to others than the members of the Church 

1 So called because they are managed by elected BoarH* ™ + 

“marks ” I n ion, r m the marriage registers ™th their 


REFORMS IN IRELAND 


457 


of England. It passed further factory laws. It definitely 
repealed the old conspiracy laws, under which labor-unions 
had been persecuted, and it gave legal rights to such unions, 
permitting them to incorporate and secure the rights at law of 
an individual. It also arranged honorably the Alabama Arbi¬ 
tration 'Treaty with the United States. It “disendowed” and 
disestablished” the English Church in Ireland, and carried 
through important land reforms for Ireland (p. 463). 

Since the days of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, the Epis¬ 
copal Church had held the ancient property of the Catholic 
Church in Ireland. The Celtic Irish population, however, 
clung with amazing fidelity to the old faith, so that in 1835 a 
parliamentary inquiry failed to find one Protestant (except 
the Episcopalian clergyman) in any one of 150 parishes. 

After Gladstone’s “disestablishment,” the Episcopal 
Church in Ireland was separated from political power, and 
was upon an equal footing legally with any other church; 
but the “ disendowment ” was only partial. The church 
lost all income from taxes (tithes), and much of its property 
was taken from it to create funds for the Catholics and 
Presbyterians in the island; but it kept its buildings and 
enough other property to leave it still very rich. All this, 
which to one party seemed only a partial remedying of a 
huge ancient injustice toward a whole people, seemed to 
another party a new and unpardonable injustice; and many 
good churchmen never forgave Gladstone for his “ act of 
robbery.” 

But Gladstone at this time would not go far enough to satisfy 
the Irish; and, despite the trade-union law, he offended the 
labor party by a new law regarding strikes. This law recognized 
the right of a union to strike, but made criminal any show of 
intimidation. It forbade strikers to revile those who remained 
at work; and it is reported that under the law seven women 
were sent to prison for crying “Bah!” at a workman who had 
deserted the strikers. The ministry lost more and more of 


The labor 
unions 
desert 
Gladstone 


458 


THE VICTORIAN AGE 


Disraeli’s 

imperialistic 

administra¬ 

tion, 

1874-1880 


its support, and finally Gladstone “ dissolved/’ In the election, 
the labor unions voted for the Conservatives; and that party 
secured a large majority, for the first time since 1832. 


Then followed Disraeli’s administration ( 1874-1880) with its 
dazzling foreign policy. The only reform at home was the 
repeal of the law against strikes. Gladstone’s ministry had 
been exceedingly peaceful and honorable in dealing with foreign 
nations. Disraeli, leader of the new ministry, characterized 
this attitude as weak, and said that it had “ compromised the 
honor of England. He adopted an aggressive foreign policy, 
and tried to excite English patriotism by “jingo ” 1 utterances 
and conduct. By act of Parliament, Queen Victoria was de¬ 
clared “Empress of India”; the Boers of the Transvaal were 
incited to war, so that England might seize their lands; and 
in 1878, when Russia conquered Turkey (p. 593 ) and seemed 
about to exclude the Turks from Europe, Disraeli interfered. 
He got together a Congress of the Powers at Berlin, and saved 
enough of European Turkey to shut Russia off from the Mediter¬ 
ranean. This was England’s greatest sin in her foreign rela¬ 
tions during the century; and though quickly repented of by 
the people (below), it bore bitter fruit forty years later — 

furnishing, as it did, in part, the chance for the opening of the 
World War. 


second° ne ' S Gladstone ca ™ forth from retirement to carry on a great 
ministry, campaign against this policy of supporting the Turk in his 
1880-1885 ^mastery over the Christian populations of southeastern Europe. 

His appeal to the moral sense of the English people was suc¬ 
cessful ; and m the election of 1880 the Liberals secured an 
overwhelming majority. The evil work of the Congress of 
Berlin could not now be undone; but Gladstone’s new ministry 
passed the T hird Reform Rill and it also completed the puri- 
cation of English politics, by adopting the law against “ Corrupt 


1 This word comes from a popular music hall song of 1878: 

“ We don’t want to fight; but, by jingo, if we do 
We ve got the men, we’ve got the ships, 

We’ve got the money, too.” 


REFORMS IN IRELAND 


459 


Practices (p. 44/). Soon, however, this Liberal ministry 
found itself occupied with Irish questions, about which English 
politics were to revolve for the next fifteen years. Some ex¬ 
planation of Irish affairs must precede further survey of English 
matters. 

For Further Reading. — Details on particular topics can be found 
in McCarthy’s Epoch of Reform (for the years 1830 to 1850), History of 
Our Own Times (1837-1880), and in the younger McCarthy’s England 
under Gladstone. Briefer accounts for the whole period are given in 
Hazen s Europe Since 1815, in McCarthy’s England in the Nineteenth 
Century, and in Rose’s Rise of Democracy. See also Carlton Hayes’ 
Modern Europe, II. 


Ireland to 
1700 


The 

religious 

difficulty 


CHAPTER XXXI 

ENGLAND AND THE IRISH QUESTION 

In the history of Ireland ... we may trace with singular clearness the 
perverting and degrading influences of great legislative injustices. — Lecky. 

The English people proper are Saxon-Norman mixed with 
Celtic blood; the Welsh, Highland Scots, and Irish are Celts. 
In the larger of the British Isles, the English, Welsh, and Scots 
live at peace; but for centuries the Irish in the smaller island 
have been restless under English rule. 

Ireland has been an unfortunate and misgoverned land. In 
the seventh and eighth centuries, she had begun to show bril¬ 
liant promise (p. 99); but this early civilization vanished in 
the wars of the Danish invasions, which for three hundred 
years inflicted upon Ireland all the woes suffered by England 
for the generation before Alfred the Great. 

Thus Henry II of England found the island sunk in misery 
and barbarism and torn by incessant tribal strife. Unhappily 
for both English and Irish, Henry’s conquest (p. 164) was left 
incomplete; and war, anarchy, and misgovernment filled three 
centuries more, down to the time of Henry VIII. Sir John 
Davis, ^ a poet-historian and statesman of Elizabeth’s time, 
wrote, “If it had been practised in Hell as it has been in Ireland,' 
it had long since destroyed the very kingdom of Beelzebub.” 

Henry VIII and Elizabeth completed the subjugation of 
the island; but now the English and Irish civilizations had 
grown far apart, and the two people could not easily mingle. 
Moreover, the English had become Protestant, and the differ¬ 
ence in religion added a tremendous difficulty. There was 
real danger that Catholic Ireland might join Spain against 
Protestant England (p. 164); and so the mutual hate and fear 

460 


IRELAND BEFORE 1800 


461 


between Irish and English grew more and more intense. About 
1600, the government began to try to make Ireland English by 
crushing out the native language and customs and religion, 
and by reducing the native population to mere tillers of the 
soil for their conquerors. On trumped-up charges, with every 
imaginable form of force and fraud, the lands of even the 
loyal Irish gentry were confiscated to furnish estates for Eng¬ 
lish adventurers ; and a war of extermination was waged against 
all who remained in arms. 


Just before the Civil War in England, the goaded Irish 
rose in fierce rebellion. A little later the merciless hand of 
Cromwell restored order with a cruelty which makes his name 
a by-word in Ireland to-day. Toward the close of the century, 
the Irish sided with James II against William III, but were 
defeated at the Battle of the Boyne (1690). The Treaty of 
Limerick (1691), however, promised them the enjoyment of 
their own religion and certain other privileges; but these 
promises were treacherously broken by the English settlers, 
who controlled the parliament of the island, so that Limerick is 
known as “the City of the Broken Treaty.” 

During the eighteenth century the fate of Ireland was wretched 
beyond description. In Ulster, the northern province, the 
population was mainly English. Elsewhere six sevenths of 
the land belonged to English landlords, most of whom lived in 
England and spent their rents there. Those who stayed in 
Ireland made up the ruling class of the island. Six sevenths 
of the people were Catholic Irish. A few of these, especially 
in the west, were country gentlemen; a considerable number 
more were tenant farmers; but the great bulk were a starving 
peasantry, working the land for Saxon landlords and living 
in mud hovels, — each with an acre or two of ground about it. 

Farmers and laborers alike were “tenants at will.” That is, 
they could be evicted at the landlord’s word. Population was 
so crowded that there was always sharp competition to get 
farms and cottages, and so the landlord could make his own 
terms. If the tenant improved the buildings or drained the land, 


Cromwell 

and 

William III 


Ireland 
in the 
eighteenth 
century 


“ Rack 
rent ” 


462 


ENGLAND AND THE IRISH 


The 

Rebellion 
and the 
“ Union ” 


Young 

Ireland 


And the 
Fenians 


he commonly found at once that he had to pay more rent, 
so that he himself got no profit from his extra labor. This 
system of “rack rent” made the peasantry reckless and lazy; 
and the fact that the law of their masters was used only to 
oppress them, trained them to hate and break the law. 

In 1798 the Irish rebelled. They were promised aid by the 
rench Directory; but the help did not come in time, and the 
rising was put down with horrible cruelty. 

A change in the government followed. For several centuries, 
t lere had been a separate parliament for Ireland, controlled 
by the English settlers; but after 1798 England consolidated the 
government of the two islands. The Act of Union (1800) abolished 
the Irish legislature, and gave Ireland one hundred representa¬ 
tives in the English Parliament. Ireland became subject di¬ 
rectly to English rule and English officials. 

These were the conditions at the opening of the nineteenth 
century. In 1803 a brilliant young Irishman, Robert Emmet 
tned to organize a rebellion for Irish independence; but the 
effort failed miserably, and Emmet died on the scaffold. 

The struggle for the repeal of the Union began in 1830, in the 
first English Parliament in which Catholics were allowed to sit 
(p. 430). Forty of the Irish delegation were pledged to work 

n T± and ,! hey Wel ’ e led by the dauntless and powerful 
Daniel 0 Connell; but the Irish famine of 1846 checked the 

agitation, and just afterward O’Connell died. Then a band of 
lot-headed young men tried conspiracy, and the fruitless and 
rather farcical rebellion of Young Ireland marked the year 1848. 

le next twenty years saw no progress. In 1866 came an- 
ot er rebellion, — the Fenian Conspiracy, organized by Irish of¬ 
ficers who had served in the American Civil War. The danger 
l not become serious, but it convinced many liberal English¬ 
men that something must be done for Ireland, and Gladstone’s 
reform ministry of 1868-1874 took up the task. 

Then there opened a new period in Irish history. The Episco¬ 
palian church in Ireland (p. 457) was disestablished, and this was 


THE HOME RULE QUESTION 


463 


followed in 1870 by the first of a long series of important reforms 
of the land laws. Two things were. attempted: (1) in case of 
removal, it was ordered that the landlord must pay for any im¬ 
provements the tenant had made; and (2) the government 
arranged to loan money on long time, and at low interest, to 
the tenants, so that they might buy their little patches of land. 
In 1S81 and 1885 Gladstone’s ministries extended and improved 
these laws until the peasants began to be true landowners, with 
a chance to develop new habits of thrift and industry. 

Meantime , in 1870 , a group of Irish members of Parliament 
had begun a new agitation for “ Home Rule,” and soon after¬ 
ward the same leaders organized the “Land League,” to try 
to fix rents, as labor unions sometimes try to fix wages. For 
the time, the Liberal ministries frowned on both these move¬ 
ments, and prosecuted the Land League sternly on the ground 
that it encouraged crime against landlords. At the same time, 
indeed, that the government was passing beneficent land laws, 
it was also passing “Coercion Acts” to establish martial law 
in Ireland. The Coercion Acts were resisted by the Irish 
members with a violence never before seen in an English Parlia¬ 
ment, and Irish conspirators outside made various attempts 
to wreck the English government buildings with dynamite and 
to assassinate English officials. 

But suddenly Gladstone made a change of front. In the new 
Parliament of 1884, eighty-six of Ireland’s hundred and five 
members were “Home Rulers.” They began to block all 
legislation; and Gladstone could go on only by securing their 
alliance. Moreover, he had become convinced that the only way 
to govern Ireland was to govern it in cooperation with the Irish, 
not in opposition to them. So in 1886 he adopted the “Home- 
Rule” plan and introduced a bill to restore a separate legisla¬ 
ture to Ireland. 

The Conservatives declared that this policy meant disunion 
and ruin to the Empire, and in this belief they were joined by 
many of the old Liberals, who took the name of Liberal Union¬ 
ists. The Home Rule Bill was defeated; but it made the issue 


Gladstone 

and 

Ireland, 

1868-1885 


Reform and 
coercion 


Gladstone 
converted to 
Home 
Rule 


Gladstone’s 

retirement 


464 


ENGLAND AND THE IRISH 


Further 

land 

reform 


in the next election a few years later, and in 1893 Gladstone 
tried to carry another such measure. This time, the Commons 
passed the bill, but the Lords threw it out. The bill differed 
in important particulars from the one before considered. More¬ 
over, the majority for it in Parliament was narrow and plainly 
due only to the Irish vote. Thus Gladstone felt that the na¬ 
tion would not support him in any attempt to pass the bill by 
swamping the Lords with new peers. At this moment his age 
compelled him to retire from parliamentary life, and the Liberals, 
left for a time without a fit leader, went out of power. 

The Conservatives and Unionists then tried to conciliate 
Ii eland by extending the policy of government loans to the 
peasantry to an almost unlimited extent, though formerly 
they had railed at such acts as robbery and socialism; and they 
granted a kind of local "home rule,” by establishing elective 
County Councils like those in England. The Irish members 
kept up agitation in Parliament, but for a long time even the 
Liberals seemed to have lost interest in Irish Home Rule; and 
indeed it was plain that nothing could be done until after “ the 
mending or ending” of the House of Lords (pp. 478 ff.). 

Meantime a remarkable group of ardent young scholars and 
poets had begun to revive the use of Erse (the ancient Irish 
language) and to build into a noble and beautiful literature the 
old Irish history and legends — just such a movement as a 
quarter century before in Bohemia had preceded a strong na¬ 
tional movement in politics. So in Ireland a new sense of 
nationality, and a new pride in it, due largely to this literary 
revival, soon gave birth to the Sinn Fein movement ("Ourselves 
alone”), demanding complete Irish independence. 


For Further Reading. — Hazen’s 
Johnston and Spencer’s Ireland's Story. 


Europe Since 1815, 471-594 




CHAPTER XXXII 


ENGLISH COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES 

After many years of wandering I have come to the conclusion that the 
mightiest factor in the civilization of the world is the imperial policy of 
England. — Admiral George Dewey (1899). 

The English navy is presumably the most potent instrumentality for 
peace in the world. — Theodore Roosevelt (December, 1918). 

Of all peoples the English have been the most successful in 
colonizing new lands and in ruling semi-barbarous races. Eng¬ 
land began her colonial expansion on the North Atlantic coast 
of America and in the West Indies, in the seventeenth century. 
In 1776 she lost her most important colonies on the continent 
of North America; but the hundred years of war with France 
(1689-1815) gave her a new and vaster empire (pp. 328-329). 
In the nineteenth century this empire was tremendously ex¬ 
panded again, — mainly by peaceful settlement and daring 
exploration. In 1914 the British Empire covered nearly four¬ 
teen million square miles, or four times the area of the United 
States and nearly a fourth the land area of the globe; and its 
population numbered four hundred millions, or about one 
fourth of the whole human race. Forty millions of this number 
dwelt in the British Isles, and about fifteen million more of 
English descent lived in self-governing colonies, — mainly in 
Canada, Australia, and South Africa. The other seven eighths 
of the vast population of the Empire are of non-European blood, 
and for the most part they are subject peoples. 

The outlying possessions are of tioo kinds : (1) those of con¬ 
tinental importance in themselves, such as Canada, India, 
Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the West 
Indian and South American colonies; and (2) coaling stations 

465 


The 

British 

Empire 


466 


ENGLISH COLONIES 


The self- 

governing 

colonies 


Crown 

colonies 


India 


and naval posts commanding the routes to these possessions, 

such as Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Ceylon, St. Helena, Trinidad 
and scores more. 

Some colonies are completely self-governing, with no depend¬ 
ence upon England except in form. This is true of Canada, 
- ustraha, New Zealand, And South Africa. These colonies 
are said to have “responsible governments.” The English min- 
istrv appoints a Governor General, whose powers resemble those 
of the figurehead monarch in England. But the people of the 
colony elect the local legislature; and the real executive is the local 

ministry responsible" to the legislature, as the ministry in 
England is to Parliament. 

In another group of colonies, the governors and officials, sent 
out from England, really control the whole government. This 
c ass of crown colonies” comprises most of the naval posts 
hke Gibraltar, and also those colonies lying in the torrid zone,’ 
where the population is mainly non-European. 

,, Indla 18 f huge crown colon y- Until 1857 it remained under 
e control of the East India Company (p. 244) but in that 

““ *m —«»• - ■ "4 2 native soldiers^—- 

and when order had been restored, India was annexed to the 

British crown. The English ministry appoints a Viceroy and a 

forTh' ’ Tr theSe a ’! th0ntieS name the subordinate officials 
the subdivisions of the vast country. In the smaller dis¬ 
tricts the English officials are assisted by native officers and to 
some extent by elected councils of natives. Outside he terri¬ 
tory ruled directly by England there are also nearly a thousand 
native principalities, large and small, where the governments 

are really directed by resident English “agents.” 

The English are making a notable attempt to introduce self- 
government and to get the natives to care for it. Towns are 
nvited to elect municipal councils and to take charge of their 
streets and drainage and other matters of local welfare The 
officers of the old East India Company were sometimes rapac.hul 
10 beis, oppressing the natives to fill their own and the Com 
pany s coffers; but since India became a crown colony EnS 


INDIA AND EGYPT 


467 


rule, for the most part, has been wise, firm, and just, and has 
aimed unselfishly at the good of the natives. India pays no 
taxes into the English treasury; indeed, she is a drain on that 
treasury. Her trade is a chief source of British wealth, but, 



Copyright by Underwood and Underwood. 

Railway Station at Bombay. The purpose of the building, of course, is 
due to English civilization, but the architecture is native Indian. 


as with all England’s possessions, 1 that trade is open to the 
merchants of all countries on terms of full equality with English 
merchants. The petty, constant wars, which formerly were 

1 Some of the self-governing colonies, against English advice, have 
enacted tariff laws giving an advantage to the trade of the Empire (“pref¬ 
erential tariffs”). 











468 


ENGLISH COLONIES 


Egypt 


always wasting the land, have been wholly done away with, 
and the terrible famines, which from time immemorial have 
desolated it at intervals, have become fewer, and on the 
whole, less serious. As a result, population has increased 
rapidly, — over fifty per cent in a century, — and to-day more 
than three hundred million people dwell in India. 1 England has 
built railroads, and developed cotton industries. Cotton mills 
give a Western appearance to parts of that ancient Oriental land. 
India has 800 newspapers (printed in twenty different lan¬ 
guages) ; and 6,000,000 students are being educated in schools 
of many grades. 

Early m the World War the Germans tried to stir up native 
rebellion in India, mainly through Hindoos living in the United 
States. The flat failure of such plots, and the enthusiastic 
aid voluntarily given to England, indicate more attachment 
to English rule than had been supposed to exist. Still it remains 
true that the Hindoos cannot understand Western civilization, 
and they do not like it. Moreover, in the great war, England 
failed to throw herself generously upon Indian loyalty: she re¬ 
fused commissions to Hindoos, and lost a great chance to bind 
that people to her more closely. 

Egypt in name was one of the tributary states of Turkey until 
1914. In fact, however, it had been independent for most of 
the nineteenth century, until, in 1881, a new master stepped in. 

ie government had borrowed recklessly and spent wastefully, 
and the land was misgoverned and oppressed by crushing taxa¬ 
tion. Then, in 1879, England and Prance jointly intervened 
to secure payment of debts due from the Egyptian Khedive 
to English and French capitalists. In 1881 came a native 
Egyptian rising against this foreign control. Prance withdrew. 
England stayed, restored order, and “occupied” the country. 

England had a special motive for staying. The Suez 
Canal was opened in 1869. In 1875 the English government 
(Disraelis administration) bought from the Egyptian 

1 Read Kipling’s William the Conqueror. 


INDIA AND EGYPT 


469 


government its share of the Canal stock, and the English 
intervention in Egypt was largely to protect this property. 

After that time, Egypt was really an English protectorate. 
The Khedive and all the machinery of the old government 
remained unchanged ; but an English agent was always present 
at the court “to offer advice,” and the Khedive understood that 
this advice must be followed. Many Englishmen entered the 
service of the Egyptian government, too, and all such officers 
looked to the English agent as their real head. 

When England put down anarchy in 1881, the ministry de¬ 
clared that the occupancy would be only temporary. This 
statement of Gladstone’s ministry was made in good faith, 
and was in keeping with other parts of Gladstone’s modest 
foreign policy. None the less, it has long been certain that no 
English government will willingly give up Egypt; and in 1914, 
during the great European war, England announced a full 
protectorate. The possession of that country, together with 
the mastery of the Suez Canal, insures the route to India; 
and Egypt has been made a base of operation, also, from which 
English rule has been extended into the Soudan (map facing 
p. 553) far toward Central Africa. 

To Egypt itself, English rule has been a decided good. The 
system of taxation has been reformed, so that it is less burden¬ 
some and more productive. The irrigation works have been 
revised and improved, so that Egypt is richer, more populous, 
and with a more prosperous peasantry, than ever before. At 
the same time there has grown up a party among the Egyptian 
people who believe that their country is now quite fit to stand 
alone. Popular risings for independence were put down sternly 
in 1920-1; but in March of 1922 the English ministry an¬ 
nounced that Egypt would soon be set free. 

One of the most important features of the nineteenth century 
was the development of self-government in the Anglo-Saxon 
colonies of England. The loss of the American colonies had 


470 


ENGLISH COLONIES 


The 

winning 
of self-gov¬ 
ernment in 
Canada 


Australia 
begins 
as a 
convict 
camp 


taught a lesson, and the next colony to show violent dissatis- 
taction had all its wishes granted. 

This event took place in Canada in 1837. There were then 
only two “ provinces ” there. These thinly settled districts lay 
along the St. Lawrence, and were known as Upper and Lower 
Canada They had been governed for many years much as 
lassachusetts or Virginia was governed before 1776. Th^re 
had been a growing dissatisfaction because the legislatures did 
not have a more complete control over the finances and over 
the executive; and the accession of the girl-queen in England 
in 1837 was the signal for a rising. The rebellion was stamped 
out quickly; but an English commissioner, sent over to inves¬ 
tigate, recommended that the demands of the conquered rebels should 
e granted. Parliament adopted this recommendation. In 1839 
the two provinces were united and were granted “responsible” 
ministries. England, in name, retains a veto upon Canadian 
legislation; but it has never been used. In 1850 a like plan for 
self-government was granted to the Australian colonies, in 1852 
to New Zealand, and in 1872 to Cape Colony in Africa. 

The growth of the Australian colonies is a romantic story 
worthy of a book to itself. England’s original claim rested on 

‘"P ,' y Captaln Cook in his second voyage to the Pacific 
m 1769; but no settlement was attempted for almost a century. 

nghsh colonization went instead altogether to the nearer 
American possessions. From the beginning of the American 
CO omzation, England had transported many convicts thither. 

16 ^“ e ™ an Revolutl °n put a stop to that practice. And 
““ Q ‘ ., n f’ an i d sent a sh ‘Pload of convicts to the coast of 
New South Wales.’ Sydney, so established, was the first 
English colony in Australia. For fifty years New South Wales 
remained a penal settlement (p. 444) ; but, after their terms of 
punishment, many ex-convicts became steady farmers, and the 
English government began to induce other settlers to “go out” 
Slants of land and of farming implements. By 1821 
the colony had a population of 40,000, and soon it became the 
main sheep-raising region in the world. 


SELF-GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRACY 471 

By natural expansion, familiar to students of American his¬ 
tory, this colony of New South Wales sent out offshoots in 
five other colonies, which, with the mother colony, covered the 
continental island: West Australia (1829), South Australia 
(1834), Tasmania (1835), Victoria (1851), and Queensland 
(1859). The black side of this splendid story was the cruel 
extinction of the native race, — a people of a much lower grade 
than the North American Indian. 

The Australian commonwealths have been pioneers in demo¬ 
cratic progress. Before 1900, every man and every woman in 
each state had the* right to vote. The government in each 
state owned the railroads. The “Australian ballot” and the 
Torrens system of land transfer came from these colonies; and 
a powerful Labor party in each has secured other radical re¬ 
forms — which are seen better still perhaps in New Zealand. 

“New Zealand” comprises a group of islands 1200 miles east 
of Australia. Settled and governed for a time from New South 
Wales, it became a separate colony in 1840. In 1911 it contained 
more than a million English-speaking inhabitants. For many 
years it has been perhaps the most democratic state in the 
world. Women secured the right to vote in 1893. Large 
estates have been broken up into small holdings by heavy 
taxation. A state “Farmers’ Loan Bank” set the example 
followed in part by the United States in 1913. The most 
advanced factory laws and “ social insurance laws in the 
world have been found in New Zealand since 1893 and 1898, 
and there have been tried, since 1895, exceedingly interesting 
experiments in compulsory arbitration of labor disputes, with 
Boards of “Conciliation” to settle such differences if possible 
in their early stages. 

South Africa was long an unsatisfactory part of the Em¬ 
pire for Englishmen to contemplate. England seized Cape 
Colony from the Dutch during the Napoleonic wars (p. 328). 
English settlers came in rapidly, but in 1834 a portion of the 
old Dutch colonists “trekked” (moved with families, ox- 
wagons, herds, and flocks) north into the wilderness, and set 


English 
expansion 
in Australia 


Democratic 
progress in 
Australia 


New 
Zealand 
experiments 
in industrial 
democracy 


South 
Africa: 
the Boers 


472 


ENGLISH COLONIES 


The Boer 
War 


up an independent government in Natal. A few years later the 
British annexed Natal, and the Dutch again trekked into what 
is known as the Orange Free State, and, in 1848, once more 
into the country beyond the Vaal River. These “ Transvaal ” 
Dutch became involved in serious difficulties with the native 
Blacks, whom they enslaved and treated brutally, and a 
native rising threatened to exterminate all Europeans in South 
Africa. Under Disraeli (p. 458) England interposed, put down 

the Zulus, and extended her authority once more over the 
Boer states. 

In 1880 the Boers rebelled, and with their magnificent 
marksmanship destroyed a British force at the Battle of Majuba 
Hill Gladstone adopted the view that the Boers had been 
wrongfully deprived of their independence, and, without 
attempting to avenge Majuba Hill, be magnanimously with¬ 
drew the British claims and left to the Boers of the Transvaal a 
virtual independence, under British “protection.” The exact 
relations between the two countries, however, were not well 
defined, and much ground was left for future disputes. 

Soon afterward, gold was discovered in the Transvaal, and 
English and other foreigners rushed in, so as to outnumber the 
oer citizens. The Boers, who were simple farmers, unable 
themselves to develop the country, had at first invited immi¬ 
grants, but soon became jealous of their growing numbers and 
refused them all political rights. England attempted to secure 
better treatment for her citizens among these new settlers, 
and, under Salisbury’s Conservative and Imperialistic ministry’ 
was bent upon reasserting her authority in general. The Boers 
SaW that En S lan d had determined to force them to a policy 
which would put the government of the little land into the 
hands of these foreign immigrants (“Outlanders”), and they 
declared war (1899). The Orange Free State joined the Trans¬ 
vaal, and the little republics carried on a marvelous and heroic 
struggle. They were finally beaten, of course; and England 
adopted a generous policy toward the conquered, making large 
gifts of money to restock their ruined farms, and granting liberal 


COLONIAL FEDERATIONS 


473 



The Canadian Parliament Building at Ottawa 

the time of the American Revolution, “Canada” meant merely 
the St. Lawrence settlements. In the nineteenth century these 
expanded westward, forming a splendid band of states 1 spanning 
the continent. Then, in 1867, the separate colonies of this 
British North America organized themselves into the Dominion 
of Canada. This is a federal state , similar to the United States, 
composed now of eight members, with a number of other “ Ter¬ 
ritories.” The union has a two-house legislature, with a re- 

1 Read Mrs. Humphry Ward’s Lady Merton, Colonist, to get the spirit 
of the Canada of the West. 


self-government, without any discrimination against her recent 
foes. When England became involved in the general European 
war of 1914, some of the Boers rose once more; but on the 
whole that people seem now content with the new and liberal 
English rule. 

During the last half-century the English-speaking colonies 
have made one more great advance in free government. At 


English 
colonies 
organized 
in great 
federal 
common¬ 
wealths 







474 


ENGLISH COLONIES 


Ties 
between 
England 
and her 
colonies 


sponsible ministry; and each of the eight states has its own 
local legislature and ministry. 

A similar union of the six Australian colonies into one federal 
state was agitated for many years; and, after two federal 
conventions and a popular vote, it was finally established on 
the first day of the twentieth century. Finally, in 1909, the four 
South African states were combined into a similar federation, 
with the name, “The Union of South Africa.” Thus three new 
English nations were formed, — each at its birth large enough 
to command respect among the nations of the world (each one 
double the size of the United States when its independence was 
achieved). Together, these three republics to-day (1919) 
contain an English-speaking population of some fifteen million 

souls, and their rapid growth contains vast promise for the 
future. 

The Boer War and the great European struggle of 1914 
showed that there was a strong tie between England and her 
self-governing colonies. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada 
all made liberal gifts of troops and money to assist the mother 
country against the Boers; and in the World War they fought 
and sacrificed as splendidly as they could have done if they had 
been directly attacked by Germany. 

The bond which holds together the Anglo-Saxon parts of 
the Empire is, however, almost wholly one of feeling. Cer¬ 
tainly, if either Canada or Australia wished to set up as an in¬ 
dependent nation, England would not dream of trying to hold 
it. Indeed from about 1850 to nearly 1900 the English Liberals 
were usually inclined to a “Little England” policy, ready to 

any attem P* of a colony to set up for itself. About 
1880, however, an impend patriotism began to show itself 
in English politics — born, perhaps, of closer communication 
by steam and electricity. This was fostered by such writers 
as lphng; and, after 1900, the growing rivalry with Germany 
am the consciousness of a common danger, drew mother state 
and daughter colonies into closer relations. The English 
statesman to-day who should invite Canada to drop out of 




IMPERIAL FEDERATION 


475 


the Empire, or who should provoke her into doing so, would be 
universally regarded in England as a traitor to his race. 

There is no present danger of separation. The colonists have 
had no recent cause to complain, except in one respect: namely, 
they have had no voice in deciding the policy of the Empire to¬ 
ward foreign nations. This evil was largely offset by the fact that 
the English navy afforded protection to the Canadian and Austra¬ 
lian trade, so that these great and wealthy countries were practi¬ 
cally freed from all burden of military and naval defense. Still, 
the situation was not altogether satisfactory. A Canadian may 
properly wish a voice in the policy of the Empire; that is, he 
may wish to be a citizen in as full a degree as if he lived in Eng¬ 
land : and England may properly think that Canada ought to 
contribute something to imperial defense. It has been proposed 
to meet both these wants by some form of Imperial Federation. 

This means that the different parts of the Empire would be 
left their present parliaments for local matters, but that the 
management of matters that concern the Empire as a whole 
would be turned over to a new parliament made up of repre¬ 
sentatives in fit proportion from England and her colonies. If 
such a federation can be carried out successfully, it will be the 
greatest triumph ever yet achieved by federal government and 
a new boon to civilization, equal perhaps to any political device 
yet developed by the English-speaking race. Meantime, so far 
as the old grievance of the colonies is concerned, the evil has 
been removed in the main by the recognition of their delegates 
in the Peace Congress of 1919 and in the League of Nations. 

For Further Reading. — Hazen, 523—545. A good longei account 
may be found in Woodward’s Expansion of the British Empire. On 
recent developments, see Year Books and Almanacs. 


CHAPTER XXXIII 


RECENT REFORM IN ENGLAND: “WAR UPON 

POVERTY” 

I hope that great advance will be made during this generation toward 
the time when poverty , with its wretchedness and squalor, will be as remote 

from the people of this country as are the wolves which once infested its 
forests. — Lloyd George, in 1909. 

pro gram* 6 ofl . tbedection of 1892, the Liberals had adopted a plat- 

1892 form callm 8 for Insh Home Rule (p. 463), for the disestablish- 

ment of the Episcopal church in Wales (where nine tenths 
of the people are dissenters), for a greater degree of local self- 
government, for sweeping reform in taxation, for old-age 
pensions, and — as a necessary step toward these things — for 
the “mending or ending” of the House of Lords. Twenty 
years carried this program to fulfillment. 

How the Lords thwarted Gladstone’s ministry of ’92-’95 on 
the Home Rule matter has been told (p. 464). That ministry 
did pass the great Parish Councils act (p. 449), making England 
a complete democracy in local government. Gladstone’s last 
speech in Parliament (sixty-one years after his first speech in 
that body) was in defense of that bill against attempted interfer¬ 
ence by the Lords. Said he, in solemn prophecy, — “The issue 

rnnn h non raiSed “ aSSemb,y ’ el ected by more than 

6,000,000 voters, and a small hereditary body, is a controversy 

which, once raised, must go forward to an issue. ” If health 

had let the “Grand Old Man” continue his leadership, the 

l a rf W „ /T had , t0 meet then an attack u P on their veto. 

%SL in w The Pansh Co ri h Ad Mped alon ° anothe r vital reform. 

England ' 01 man Y years the Liberal party had declared for making the 
peasantry once more the owners of farm lands, and the Con¬ 
servatives had finally come to favor the measure. In 1890 

476 ' 


ASQUITH AND LLOYD GEORGE 


477 


1200 men (out of a population of 32,000,000) owned a fourth 
of the soil of England, and only one twenty-fourth of the 'popula¬ 
tion owned any land at all. A series of Allotment acts (1883, 
1887, 1892) had tried to remedy this great evil, but with little 
success. After 1894, however, the democratic Parish Councils 
began to buy land (and even to condemn it and take it at a 
forced sale), and then turn it over in small holdings to farm 
laborers, either on long leases or for purchase on easy terms. 
Slowly but surely the English people began again to become the 
owners of England, and the movement has been tremendously in¬ 
creased by the War of 1914-1918. 

After Gladstone s retirement, the Conservatives held power 
for ten years ( 1896-1905 ). They carried forward some social 
reforms which they had once bitterly opposed — such as factory 
reform and Irish-land reform — but they also placed the Eng¬ 
lish Board schools under the control of the established church. 
These schools are attended mainly by the children of the work¬ 
ing people. These are almost wholly dissenters. When the 
Liberals returned to power they gave their first efforts to repeal 
this law. 

And by 1905 the Liberals had found a group of new leaders, 
who still (1919) remain great figures in English public life, 
— Mr. Asquith, prime minister from 1908 to 1915; Mr. Lloyd 
George, his leading finance minister and a radical reformer 
in taxation, and afterward England’s great war dictator; and 
Mr. Winston Churchill. The ministry which contained these 
men was supported by the largest parliamentary majority 
which had been seen since the First Reform Bill in 1832. The 
same election sent fifty Labor representatives to parliament, several 
of them avowed Socialists. 

The new ministry completed earlier legislation by a compre¬ 
hensive Workingman’s Compensation act (p. 453); but the 
first attempt to take the schools from the control of the church 
was successful only in part — owing to the veto of the Lords. 
That House, too, ventured to challenge conflict by vetoing a 
bill that tried to take away the “plural votes” of rich men. 


The Con¬ 
servative 
rule, 

1896-1905 


Return of 
the Liberals 
to power 


Fifty Labor 
members in 
1900 


478 


ENGLAND, 1906-1914 


Lloyd 
George’s 
budget of 
1909 


The English law permitted a man to vote in as many 
counties as he held landed property. One clause in the 
Liberal platform of 1892 had been, “One man, one vote’’; 
and, in like manner, the defense of this ancient privilege of 
property had become a matter of intense feeling with the 
English C onservatives. Since elections were held all on one 
day, however, the actual number of plural votes was not 
very large; but they remained a hateful class distinction. 

The ministry wisely refused the challenge of the Lords to 
dissolve and appeal to the country on any one of these issues. 
Instead, they let the hereditary House pile up the account 
against it, until Englishmen should be ready to strike decisively. 
The final clash came over the budget. 

Each year the ministry presents a statement of the expenses 
it intends to incur, and of the taxes it proposes to lay where¬ 
with to meet those expenses. This statement is the budget. 
In April of 1909 Lloyd George presented a budget which hon¬ 
estly horrified Conservatives, and which was the most social¬ 
istic step ever taken up to that time by a great government. 
Leading provisions were as follows : — 

A graduated income tax took a large part of all incomes 
over $25,000, and bore more heavily on unearned incomes 
than on those that are earned. 

A graduated inheritance tax took larger proportions than 

formerly of inheritances, — fifteen per cent of bequests 
over £1,000,000. 

A much higher tax was placed on land that paid rents and 
royalties to landlords than on land worked by its owners. 

Finally, and most important of all, there was a provision 
that when any man sold land for more than it had cost, he 
must pay one fifth the gain into the national treasury. 

. 1S 18 known as a tax on the “ unearned increment/' and 
is a move toward the doctrine of the Single-taxers, who 
wish the community to take all such unearned increment. 


LLOYD GEORGE’S BUDGET OF 1909 


479 



The Conservatives attacked this budget violently as revolu¬ 
tionary. Especially they denounced the distinction regarding 
unearned incomes as an “invidious assault on the rights of 
property.” Moreover, they claimed that the treasury did not 
need such vast income as was proposed. As to this last point, 
Lloyd George had declared that he was proposing a “war 
budget,” — for “waging 
implacable war against 
poverty.” (See also the 
theme sentence at the 
head of this chapter.) 

The other accusations were 
answered forcibly and di¬ 
rectly by Mr. Winston 
Churchill, who frankly 
declared a man’s right to 
property dependent upon 
the way in which he 
obtained it: “Formerly,” 
said he, “ the only question 
by the tax-gatherer was 
‘ How much have you 
got?’ . . . To-day ... we 
ask also, ‘ How did you get 
it f Did you earn it, or has 
it been left you by others ? 

Was it gained by processes 
which are beneficial to the community, or by processes which 
have done no good to any one, but only harm? . . . Was 
it derived by active reproductive processes, or merely by 
squatting on a piece of land till enterprise and labor had to buy 
you out ? . . . How did you get it ? ’ That is the new question 
which is vibrating through the land.” 

The budget passed the Commons, but the Lords threw it 
out by a vote of five to one. For many centuries the upper 
House had not dared to interfere with a “money bill” (p. 111). 


Lloyd George in 1909. — From a photo¬ 
graph. 


The Lords 

challenge 

conflict 








480 


ENGLAND, 1906-1914 


The 

ministry 
supported 
by the 
nation 


The Lords 
lose the veto 


Now was the time for the reformers to strike. In the Commons 

Mr. Asquith promptly moved a resolution “That the action of 

the Lords is a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the 

rights of the Commons.” This resolution passed by a vote of 
three to one. J 

Then the ministry dissolved, and appealed to the country 
lor support in restricting the power of the Lords. The elec¬ 
tion (January, 1910) gave the Liberals again a good working 
majority. The ministry announced at once that the budget 
would be again presented, and, after it, some proposal for 
change of the House of Lords. If the Lords stopped either 

measure, the ministry would again dissolve, and appeal to the 
nation. 

The Lords now allowed the revolutionary budget to become law. 
ihe Liberals, however, pressed their attack on the veto power 
Of the Lords. The death of King Edward (May, 1910) caused 

heath The Lords threw out the Commons’ bill against them. 
As they had promised, the ministry dissolved. The new elec¬ 
tion (the second referendum within twelve months) gave them 
sight gains; and the new House of Commons enthusiastically 
passed a second bill to take away the Lords’ veto. When the 
b,ll was sent to the other House, Mr. Asquith announced that 

five hundred new peers, if necessary, would be created to secure 
its passage. 

Then the helpless Lords passed the law which reduced their 
House to a nonentity. Under this new law (August, 1911) any 

m ° n Z e ?’ assed by the Commons becomes law within a 
month, whether the Lords pass it or not; and the Speaker of 

Anv 77m deCldes whether a bill is or is not a money bill. 

y other b.ll passed by the Commons at three successive sessions 
becomes law, in spite of a veto by the Lords. That is, the 
Lords former veto is taken away wholly for a large and important 
c ass o i s, and is made only a suspensive veto, good for two 
years, for all other legislation. At last, the hereditary part of par¬ 
liament is made strictly subordinate to the representative branch 


SOCIAL INSURANCE 


481 


The Liberals then hastened to push through their program of 
social reform. (1) In 1908 they had already passed an Old-age 
Pensions act giving $1.25 a week to every person over seventy 
years old with a yearly income of less that £160. And on the 
first day of the next year, when the law took effect, more than 
half a million elderly men and women drew, from the nearest 
post offices, their first weekly pensions — not as a dole of charity 
but as due reward in payment for a long life of useful service to 
the commonweal. (2) An even more important move in the 
“ war against poverty” was now made, in the National Insurance 
act of 1911. This act compelled every worker with a yearly 
income of less than $800 to insure against sickness, and offered 
tempting inducements for such insurance to workers with higher 
incomes. The benefits include weekly payments during sickness, 
free medical care in health, and free treatment in state hospitals 
when sick. (3) More radical still was a provision insuring 
workers in certain trades against unemployment. A workman out 
of work, without fault of his own, was promised a weekly sum for 
a term of fifteen weeks, and free transportation to a place where 
the free labor-bureaus may find him new work. Half the cost of 
all this insurance (but not of the old-age pensions) was taken 
from the wages of the workers; the other half was divided be¬ 
tween the employers and the national treasury. 

Thus England’s social legislation included comprehensive 
factory acts, workingmen’s compensation for injuries received 
in their work, insurance against sickness and against loss of 
time, and old-age pensions. By a radical system of taxation, 
the money to wage this war against poverty was taken especially 
from the wealthy, and particularly from that class of wealthy 
men who received their incomes without rendering service to society 
in return. Nearly all civilized countries are moving along these 
same lines; but no other had then gone quite so far. 

Political reform, too, was pushed forward. In 1911 the maxi¬ 
mum duration of Parliaments was limited to five years, instead 
of seven, and salaries ($2000 a year) were provided for members 
of Parliament. 


Social 

insurance, 

1911 


Other 
reform 
before the 
War 


482 


ENGLAND, 1906-1914 


The Irish 
question 


This makes it more possible for poor men to sit in Parliament 
4 or some years, labor unions had been in the practice of paying 
salaries to Labor representatives in the Commons; but the 
1 nglisli courts had just declared that the unions had no right 
to use money for that purpose. The new law destroyed the 
orce of this Tory judicial decision, and established one more of 
ie points of the old Chartists. Moreover, the same Parlia- 
ment finally passed “Welsh disestablishment” and Irish Home 

, Pords vetoed both measures in 1912 and in 1913, 

ut in 1914 they became law over the veto (p. 480). In Prot¬ 
estant Ulster, however, the Conservative “Unionists” threat¬ 
ened rebe lion to prevent Home Rule going into effect. When 
a few weeks later, the World War began, the leaders in this pro- 
fciam o \i° ence gave it up; but in return the ministry secured 

f , r ? m , Parllament postponing the date when Home Rule 
and Welsh disestablishment should go into operation. 

^ the Eng ’ ish Par,iaments had abolished 
the English church m Ireland and had tried honestly to undo 

the injustice of centuries of English landlordism there by making 

the Irish peasants again the owners of their own land. A final 

wtf irr-rr about to be which w 0U id h ave 

The r, therIriSb f, 0rm m Insh hands and wiped out old hatreds, 
delay inevitable as it probably was, roused fierce resentment 

and now the Sinn Feiners (p. 464) became the dominant party 

m Ireland. Great numbers of the Irish people still did their 

part nobly m the war for democracy; but many leaders, with 

much popular support, spent their energies instead (sometimes 

even in plots with German despotism) to set up an independent 

Iieland. On the other hand, England, fighting Germany for 

her life and for world liberty, used grievous severity in putting 

down one o these plots, where legal treason was clear, by eZ 

eutmg the leaders. This has made any righteous settlement 

erribly hard. In the Parliamentary election of 1919 (after the 

f <M»4 the Home Bute, 


VOTES FOR WOMEN” 


483 


cc 


seats vacant. For nearly three years more, English officials 
and an English army ruled Ireland under martial law — with 
countless riots and assassinations by Irish rebels, and with 
horrible police retaliation. 

But, as English public opinion became informed of this con¬ 
dition, and of the growing Irish sentiment for independence, it 
began to rebel against a policy of repression. As a result Lloyd 
George called into conference the Irish leaders and agreed 
with them upon a new plan for an Irish Free State, under 
which Ireland becomes as independent and self-governing as 
Canada — “ one of the federated members in the British Com¬ 
monwealth of Nations.” This plan was approved by the Eng¬ 
lish parliament and by successive national Irish assemblies; 
but it was still resisted for months by armed bands of irrecon¬ 
cilable “Republicans.” Early in 1923 the Free State was for¬ 
mally inaugurated, with Timothy Healy for Governor General. 

In 1912 the ministry introduced the “Fourth Parliamentary 
Reform Bill,” extending the suffrage to all grown men and 
establishing the principle “one man, one vote.” This bill was 
withdrawn, later, because of complications with the “ equal 
suffrage” movement, which demands some mention here. 

Until 1870, women in England (and in most European lands) 
had fewer rights than in America. To the law, a married 
woman was a minor. Her husband was her guardian, — almost 
her master. He might even beat her if she disobeyed him. 
Before 1900, property rights had gradually been granted women, 
though not so fully as in progressive American States. In 1870, 
when the English “Board schools” (p. 456) were created, women 
were given the right to vote for the Boards, and to serve upon 
them. In 1888 and 1894 they were given the franchise for 
the County Councils and Parish Councils (p. 449), subject 
to the same tax-paying restrictions that applied to men. 

Then in 1893 the colony of New Zealand gave women full 
political rights, and in 1901 the new Australian Commonwealth 
did so. The action of these progressive colonies reacted upon 


“ Votes foi 
Women ” : 
the suffra¬ 
gettes 


484 


ENGLAND, 1906-1914 


Old England; and there the question was taking on a new 
character. In 1905 numbers of English women exchanged 
peaceful agitation for violence, in the campaign for the ballot. 
They made noisy and threatening demonstrations before the 
homes of members of the ministry; they broke windows; they 
invaded the House of Commons in its sittings; and at last they 
began even to destroy mail boxes and burn empty buildings. 

The leaders in this movement were Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst 
and her daughters Sylvia and Christobel. The purpose was to 
center attention on the demand “Votes for women,” since, the 
leaders believed, the demand was sure to be granted if only 
people could be kept thinking about it. When members of this 
party of violence were sent to jail, they resorted to a “starvation 
strike, until the government felt compelled to release them 
after trying for a time “forcible feeding.” 

Li °? d Ge ° rge WaS an 0pen ad ™«ite of equal suffrage; but 
the ministry as a whole was unwilling to put its other reform pro¬ 
gram in peril by making woman suffrage “ a government meas¬ 
ure. When (1912) Mr. Asquith introduced the proposed parlia¬ 
mentary reform (p. 483), he promised that the ministry would 
accept an amendment for woman suffrage if the House should 
pass one. Tins did not content the women agitators. Violence 
increased; and the sympathies of the Liberals were so divided 
that the government finally withdrew the bill altogether, as it 
did another in 1914. When the great war began, in the fall of 
that year, Mrs. Pankhurst called upon her followers to drop 
all violence while the country was in peril; and the devoted ser¬ 
vices of women to the country throughout the war removed the last 
opposition to equal suffrage. In 1918 the “ Fourth Reform Bill ” 
became law, giving one vote to each man above twenty-one 
and to each woman thirty years of age. This advanced age 

requirement was adopted as a temporary measure, because of 
the loss of men in the war. 


For Further Reading. — Ogg, Social Progress in 
Europe, 265-279; Cross, History of England, ch. lvii • 
History of England, 617-639. 


Contemporary 
Larson, Short 


PART IX 


CONTINENTAL EUROPE FROM THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN 
TO THE WORLD WAR. 1871-1914 


CHAPTER XXXIV 

FRANCE : CLOSE OF THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 

The news of Sedan (p. 422) reached Paris, September 3,1870. 
The city had been kept in ignorance of the previous disasters 
to French arms. Now it went mad with dismay and terror. 
The next day a mob invaded the hall where the legislature 
was already debating the deposition of Napoleon. So strength¬ 
ened, a few Radical deputies tumultuously proclaimed the 
“ Third Republic,” and set up a provisional Government of 
National Defense. 

This government tried at first to secure an honorable peace 
with Germany, protesting, truly, that the French people had 
not willed the war. But when Prussia made it plain that she 
intended to punish France by taking large slices of her territory, 
the conflict entered upon a new stage and became a heroic 
struggle for defense. 

For this second stage of the Franco-Prussian War, there are 
two main features: the gallant resistance of Paris through a 
four months’ siege, and a magnificent, patriotic uprising in the 
provinces. Gambetta, a leading member of the Government of 
Defense, escaped from Paris, in a balloon, 1 to organize the move¬ 
ment in the provinces. For a time success seemed possible. 
Exhausted France raised army after army, and amazed the 
world by her tremendous exertions. But unhappily Gambetta, 
instead of abandoning Paris to its fate and prolonging resist¬ 
ance by retiring slowly before the German advance, wear- 


The Gov¬ 
ernment of 
National 
Defense 


Second 
stage of 
the War 


1 This was long before the day of aeroplanes. 

485 




486 


FRANCE AFTER 1870 


The 

National 
Assembly 
of 1871 


Bismarck 
dictates 
harsh terms 


The “ Com¬ 
mune of 
Paris,” 1871 


ing out the enemy in a hostile country, thought it necessary to 
hurl his half-trained forces upon the German lines, in the vain 
effort to relieve Paris. In the end it became apparent that the 
iion giasp of the German armies, with their perfect organization, 
could not be broken. The great population of Paris began to 
suffer the horrors of famine; the‘dogs and rats had been eaten ; 
and on January 28 the city surrendered. 

There was no government in France with any real authority 
to maim 'peace, and so an armistice was arranged, to permit the 
election of a National Assembly by manhood suffrage. Even 
the autocratic Bismarck had insisted upon this, since he meant 
that the whole French nation should give its consent to the 
terms he meant to impose. The Assembly met toward the 
close of February, 1871, and created a provisional government 

by electing Thiers Head of the Executive Power of the French 
Republic.” 

The terms of peace were hard. The Prussians demanded 
Alsace and a part of Lorraine, with the great fortresses of Bel- 
foit, Metz, and Strassburg, and a huge war indemnity of one 
and a fifth billion dollars (some four times the cost of the war 
to Germany). Day after day the aged Thiers wrestled in 
pleading argument with Bismarck, the grim German Chancellor, 
to secuie better terms. He did finally secure a reduction of 
the indemnity to one billion, and the retention of Belfort — 
much against the will of the Prussian war lords. In return for. 
these concessions, however, the Prussians humiliated Paris by 
maiching German troops in triumphal progress into the capital. 

Stern and ruthless as Bismarck was, he was too far- 
seeing to like these extreme measures. He knew they 
must arouse a deathless hostility in France. But the vic¬ 
torious military party was now too strong for him, he tells 
us, and he felt obliged to yield to its demands. 

The National Assembly had hardly arranged peace with 
the foreign foe, before it had to meet a terrible rebellion at home 
During the siege all the adult males of Paris had been armed 


THE COMMUNE OE 1871 


487 


as National Guards. When the siege was over, every one who 
could get away from the distressed city did temporarily re¬ 
move, including one hundred and fifty thousand of the wealth¬ 
ier National Guards. Paris was left in control of the radical 
element. This element, too, kept its arms and its military or¬ 
ganization ; and it now set up a government of its own by 
choosing a large “ Central Committee.” 

The National Assembly had established itself, not at Paris, 
but at Versailles. The radical Republicans of Paris suspected 
it of wishing to restore the monarchy. In fact, a large major¬ 
ity of the members were Monarchists, as events were soon to 
prove (p. 490). The Assembly, too, had put in command of the 
army a man who had assisted in Napoleon’s coup d’etat. Paris 
suspected him of preparing another such move in favor of 
some of the royalist pretenders. Moreover, the Assembly had 
aggrieved the poorer classes of Paris: it had insisted upon the 
immediate payment of rents and other debts incurred during 
the siege; and it did away in large measure with the pay of 
the National Guard, which, since the surrender, had been a 
kind of poor-relief. In addition to all this, the Reds and 
Socialists still remembered bitterly the cruel middle-class ven¬ 
geance of ’48 (p. 391). 

For two weeks Paris and Versailles faced each other like 
hostile camps. The National Guards collected a large num¬ 
ber of cannon in one of the forts of Paris. March 18 the Assem¬ 
bly sent a detachment of troops to secure these guns. A 
mob gathered to resist them. The Assembly’s troops refused 
to fire, and looked on while two of their officers were seized 
and shot by the rebels. 

For a time, there was still hope that a conflict might be 
averted. Paris decided to hold an election for a “General 
Council,” and it was possible that the moderate element might 
win. Two hundred thousand votes were cast. The Radicals 
and Revolutionists elected sixty-four members, to about twenty 
Moderates. Then the Radical Council, acting with the “Cen¬ 
tral Committee,” set up the Commune , and adopted the red flag. 


488 


FRANCE AFTER 1870 


Civil War 


In 1848 the Paris Radicals had learned that the country 
districts of France were overwhelmingly opposed to Socialism 
and to “Red Republicanism.” So this new Paris Commune 
advocated extreme local self-government for all France. As 
Hanotaux, a prominent French historian, puts it, “The men of 
the Commune wished to make a Switzerland of France.” If 
each city and village could become an almost independent 
state, then the Radicals hoped to carry out their socialistic 
policy in at least Paris and other large cities. 

The supporters of this program wished the central govern¬ 
ment of France to be merely a loose federation of independent 
communes”; and so they called themselves “Federals.” 
They are properly described also as “ Communards ”; but the 
name “Communist,” which is often applied to them, is likely to 
gi\e a false impression. That latter name is generally used 
only for those who oppose private property. Many of the 
Communards were also Communists, but probably the majority 
of them were not. 

The supporters of the Commune included the greater part 
of the citizens remaining in Paris. But France, though still 
bleeding from invasion, refused to be dismembered by internal 
revolt. . The excited middle class felt, moreover, that the 
institution of property itself was at stake, and they confounded 
all Communards together as criminals seeking to overthrow 
society. Little chance was given to show what the Com¬ 
mune would have done, if left to itself. There is an interest¬ 
ing parallel between their program and that of the Russian 
Bolshevists m 1918. Like attempts to set up Communes took 
place at Marseilles, Toulouse, Narbonne, and Lyons; but 
they came to little, and the civil war was confined to Paris. 

April 2 the Versailles Assembly attacked Paris with the 
regular troops that had now returned from captivity in Ger¬ 
many. The struggle lasted two months and was utterly fero¬ 
cious. The Assembly refused to treat the Communards as regu¬ 
lar combatants, and shot down all prisoners. In retaliation, 
the Commune seized several hundred hostages from the better 


THE FALL OF THE COMMUNE 


489 


classes left in Paris, declaring that it would execute three of 
them for each of its soldiers shot after surrender. In fact, 
however, it did not carry out this threat; and the hostages 
were not harmed until the Commune had been overthrown. 
Then, in the final disorder, an unauthorized mob did put sixty- 
three of them to death, — the venerable Archbishop of Paris 
among them. 

The bombardment of Paris by the Versailles government 
was far more destructive than that by the Germans had been. 
Finally the troops forced their way into the city, which was 
already in flames in many sections. For eight days more, 
desperate fighting went on in the streets, before the rebellion 
was put down. 

The Commune had arranged mines in the sewers to blow up 
certain portions of the streets where the invaders were expected 
to enter ; and, during its brief rule, it had cast down the tri¬ 
umphal column of Napoleon I (p. 316), on the ground that 
such glorification of wars of conquest was unworthy a civilized 
people. These facts, together with some destruction by the 
mob after the Commune had ceased to control the city, gave 
rise to the report that the Commune tried to destroy Paris 
when it could no longer retain possession. No such intention 
is needed to explain an enormous destruction under the condi¬ 
tions of the war. The world has never ceased to lament the 
loss to the art collections of the city. 

Court-martial executions of large batches of prisoners con¬ 
tinued for many months, and some thirteen thousand sur¬ 
vivors were condemned to transportation, before the rage of 
the victorious middle class was sated. There are few darker 
stains on the page of history than the cruelty and brutality 
of this middle-class vengeance. 

i 

For Further Reading. — Hazen’s Europe Since 1815, 330-336, 
or Andrews’ Modern Europe, II, 343-349. Also Robinson and Beard’s 
Readings, II, 211-212. 


Another 
“ White 
Terror 


The 

Assembly 
monarchic 
in feeling 


Monarchic 
factions 
fail to unite 


Thiers 

President, 

1871-1873 


CHAPTER XXXV 

establishment of the third french republic, 

1871-1879 

The Assembly had been elected simply with a view to mak¬ 
ing peace. In choosing it, men had thought of nothing else. 

was limited by no constitution, and it had no definite term of 
Office.. Certainly, it had not been commissioned to make a con¬ 
stitution or to continue to rule indefinitely; but it did both 
these things. 

At the election, people had chosen conservative candidates, 
because they wanted men who could be counted upon not to 
lenew the war rashly. The majority of the members proved to 
be Monarchists; and they failed to set up a king, only because 
they were divided into three rival groups, - Imperialists (Bona- 
parusts), Orleamsts (supporters of the Count of Paris, grandson 

f rg U1S 1 ! lpP ' ! ’ and legitimists (adherents of the Count 

hambord grandson of Charles X). These three factions 
agreed in believing that a new election would increase the 
strength of the Republicans; and so for five years they resisted 
all demands of the Republican members for dissolution. 

Now that peace had been made, and the rebellion crushed 

Assembly felt compelled to replace the “provisional govern’ 

ment by some more regular form. Accordingly it made Thiers 
“President of the Republic.” 

In truth, however, the government remained “provisional ” 

at s'omefav 7 ' ASSemWy h ° Ped t0 change to a monarchy 
office Still ° tt b ^ m °“ ent ’ and the y 9 ave Thie ™ no fixed term of 
tm iS * IS , preSldenC -'' ' aSted more than two years longer 

life _ 8 i v ^ “f* g ’ 0rl0US years of the oId statesman’s 
We, and it was marked by three important features 

490 


MONARCHISTS AND REPUBLICANS 491 

1. France took up gallantly the huge work of reorganization. 
Schools, army, and church were reconstructed (p. 495 ff.). 

2. France was freed from foreign occupation , and Thiers won 
the proud title of “ Liberator of the Territory.” It had been 
intended that the vast war indemnity should be paid in install¬ 
ments through three years; and German garrisons were to 
remain in France until 
payment was complete. 

Germany had expected the 
indemnity to keep France 
weak for a long period. 

But France astonished all 
beholders by her rapid 
recovery. In eighteen 
months the indemnitv was 
paid in coin, and the last 
German soldier had left 
French soil. The govern¬ 
ment loans (p. 500) w’ere 
taken up enthusiastically 
by all classes of French¬ 
men, — in great measure 
by the industrious and pros¬ 
perous peasantry. 

3. Republicanism was 
strengthened. Thiers w T as 
an old Orleanist; but he 
saw that to set up a king was to risk civil war. Accordingly, 
he allied himself with the Moderate Republicans in the As¬ 
sembly, and baffled triumphantly the efforts of the Monarchists. 
Meantime Republicanism grew T stronger daily in the country. 

In 1873 a momentary coalition of Monarchists and Radicals 
in the Assembly forced Thiers to resign. In his place the 
Monarchists elected Marshal Mac Mahon, *an ardent Orleanist. 
For some months a monarchic restoration seemed almost certain. 



Last chance 
of the 
Monarch¬ 
ists : Mac- 
Mahon’s 
presidency 





492 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC 


Legitimists and Orleanists had at last united in support of the 
Count of Chambord, who agreed to adopt the Count of Paris 
as his heir. The Monarchists had the machinery of the govern¬ 
ment in their hands, and were just ready to declare the Bour¬ 
bon heir the King of France, when the two factions split once 
more on the question of a symbol. The Orleanists wished to 
keep the tricolor, the flag of the 1830 Monarchy. But the 
Count of Chambord denounced the tricolor as the “ symbol 
of revolution,” and declared that he would not give up the white 
lilies of the old Bourbon monarchy, the symbol of divine right. 

On this scruple the chance of the Monarchists came to ship¬ 
wreck. 

MonoMhe . Thm ’ ™ 1875 ’ pairing of an immediate restoration, the 
Third Assembly adopted a constitution. Modified slightly by later 
Republic amendments, this is the present constitution of the French Re¬ 
public. It has never been submitted to the people. 

. The C °™tHuti<m is very brief, because the Monarchist major¬ 
ity preferred to leave the details to be settled by later legisla¬ 
tion, hoping to adapt them to a kingly government. The word 

. republlc ” dld not a PPear in the original draft, but it was 
introduced, indirectly, by amendment. The first draft snoke 

of a Chief Executive. ” An amendment changed this title to 

President of the Republic”; but the change was adopted by a 
majority of only one in a vote of 705. In 1884 a new amend¬ 
ment declared the republican form of government “not subject 

Tn r»sy fY\s>nl 77 


The legislature consists of two Houses. The Senate contains 
three hundred members, holding office for nine years, one 
third going out each third year. (At first, seventy-five of 
the members were to hold office for life, but in 1884 an amend¬ 
ment declared that no more life members should be chosen.) 

11 Deputies (lower House) are chosen by manhood suffrage 
tor a term of four years. 

When the Senate and the House of Deputies agree that it is 
desirable to amend the constitution, or when it is necessary to 
c oose a president, the two Houses meet together, at Versailles , 


THE CONSTITUTION 


493 


away from possible disturbances in Paris. In this joint form, 
they take the name A ational Assembly. A majority vote of this 
National Assembly suffices to change the constitution. 

The executive consists of a president, elected for seven years 
by the National Assembly, and of the ministry he appoints. 
The president has much less power than the president of the 
United States. He is little more than a figurehead. He can 
act only through his ministers (cf. pp. 437, 438). 

The ministers, as in England, are the real executive. They 
wield enormous power, directing all legislation, appointing a 
vast multitude of officers, and carrying on the government. 
Nominally, the president appoints the ministers; but, in prac¬ 
tice, he must always name those whp will be acceptable to the 
Deputies, and the ministry is obliged to resign when it ceases 
to have a majority to support its measures. 

The Deputies maintain a control over the ministers by the 
right of interpellation. That is, any Deputy may address to the 
ministers a formal question, calling upon them to explain their 
action in any matter. Such a question must be answered fully; 
and it affords a chance to overthrow the ministry, by a vote of 
“ lack of confidence.” 

Even after the adoption of the constitution, the Assembly did 
not give way at once to a new legislature. But almost every 
“by-election” (to fill a vacancy, upon death or resignation) 
resulted in a victory for the Republicans; and by 1876 that 
party had gained a majority of the seats. It at once dissolved 
the Assembly, and the new elections created a House of Deputies 
two thirds Republican. 

The Senate, with its seventy-five life-members, was still 
monarchic; and, with its support, MacMahon tried to keep a 
Monarchist ministry. During this contest the President and 
Senate dissolved the House of Deputies (as the constitution 
gives them power to do when they act together), and the 
ministry changed prefects and local officers all over France in 
order to control the election. But the Republicans rallied 


The 

Republic 

securely 

established 


494 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC 



under the leadership of the fiery Gambetta (p. 485), and the 
new House of Deputies was even more strongly Republican 
than the preceding one. This body then withheld all votes of 
supply, until MacMahon appointed a ministry acceptable to it. 

hi 1879 the renewal of one third the Senate gave the Re¬ 
publicans a majority in that House also, and, soon after, Mac¬ 
Mahon resigned. Then the National Assembly elected to the 
presidency Grevy, an ardent Republican; and all branches of 
the government had at last come under Republican control. 


Stability of 
the Republic 


For nearly a century, France had passed from revolution 
to revolution, until the world came to doubt whether any 
French government could be stable — much as the same for¬ 
getful world had felt about England in the seventeenth cen¬ 
tury. I he present constitution of France is the eleventh since 
1789. But in 1879, for the first time in the history of France, 
republican government was established by the calm will of the 
nation. Four times between 1792 and 1871 had the Republicans 
seized Paris; three times they had set up a republic; but 
never before had they truly represented the deliberate deter¬ 
mination of the whole people. In 1879 they came into power, 
not by violence, but by an eight years’ constitutional struggle 
against the political tricks of an accidental Monarchist majority. 
This time it teas the Republicans whom the conservative, peace- 
loving peasantry supported. Even the World War did not bring 
any thought of a change in government. 








CHAPTER XXXVI 


FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 

The chief peril to the Republic has been its conflict with Church 
the clergy of the Catholic church. Seventy-eight per cent of the and State 
people of France are members of the Catholic church. Other 
religions make up about two per cent. Twenty per cent have 
no religious connection. 

During the dubious period from 1871 to 1879, the Repub¬ 
lican leaders felt that the bulk of the Catholic clergy were 
aiding the Monarchists with their tremendous influence. Cried 
Gambetta, in one of his fiery orations, — “ Clericalism ! That 
is our foe.” Accordingly, when the Republicans came into 
power, they hastened to weaken the church by taking from it 
its ancient control over the family. Marriage was made a 
civil contract (to be performed by a magistrate) instead of a 
sacrament; divorce was legalized, despite the teachings of the 
Catholic church against it; and all religious orders were for¬ 
bidden to teach in either public or private schools. 

The mass of the Catholic nation supported this anti-clerical 
policy; but extreme Catholics were driven into fierce opposition 
to the government. The wise and gentle Pope Leo XIII, 
however, moderated the bitterness of the political warfare by 
recommending that French Catholics “rally” to the Republic, 
and try to get the privileges they needed by influencing 
legislation, not by trying to change the form of government 
(1893). On its side, the government then for a time let most of 
the anti-clerical laws rest quietly unenforced. 

But about the year 1900, the Republicans and Radicals 
became alarmed again at the evidence of Monarchic sympathies 
still existing among the aristocracy, and even among army 
officers, and convinced themselves that these sympathies were 

495 


496 


FRANCE UNDER THE REPUBLIC 


Local gov¬ 
ernment 


due to the remaining clerical influence in the schools. In the 
years 1901-1903, thousands of church schools were closed by 
the police, sometimes amid riots and bloodshed. Pope Pius X 
protested, and deposed two French bishops who had acquiesced 
in the government’s policy. The government recalled its 
ambassador from the papal court, and prepared a plan which 
it called Separation of Church and State,” but which zealous 
Catholics denounced as anti-religious robbery. 

According to this new plan, a law of 1905 declared the 

nation the owner of all church property in France. Each 

religious congregation, however, was invited to reorganize as 

a cultural association,” and was promised permanent use 

of its old property if it did so. Protestant churches complied; 

but such organization was forbidden to Catholics by the pope 

as incompatible with the principles of the church. In the 

elections of 1906, however, the nation gave an overwhelming 

indorsement to the whole anti-clerical policy; and then the 

government evicted great numbers of Catholic clergy from 

their homes (for refusing to obey the law of 1905) and banished 

multitudes of them from the country. In 1914, when the 

great European war began, two thousand of these banished 

priests returned to France to fight in the ranks against the 

invaders of their country. The “ kulturkampf ” (struggle 

between church and state to control education) is not yet fully 

ended m France; but the splendid patriotism of the clergy 

m thls S reat war Wl11 certainly result in some spirit of compro¬ 
mise for the future (1919). 

For local government, France has been divided into 88 “ De¬ 
partments.” Each Department has an executive officer, called 
a prefect, and a General Council. The prefect is appointed 
by the Minister of the Interior, and he may be removed by the 
same authority. He appoints police, postmen, and other local 
officers The General Council is elected by universal suffrage. 

exeicises contiol over local taxation and expenditures, 
especially for roads, asylums, and, to some degree, for schools; 
but its decisions are subject to the supervision of the central govern- 


LOCAL GOVERNMENT 


497 


merit. Indeed, the central government may dissolve a Depart¬ 
mental council at any time, and order a new election. 

The communes of France, since the recovery of Alsace-Lor¬ 
raine, number about forty thousand. They vary in size from 
great cities, like Marseilles, 1 to rural villages with only two 
or three hundred people. For all of them there is one system 
of government. Each has a mayor and a council. Until 
1884, the mayor was appointed by the Minister of the Interior; 
since 1884, he has been elected by the municipal council. He 
is still regarded, however, as the officer of the central govern¬ 
ment, which may revise his acts or even remove him from 
office. The municipal council is elected by manhood suffrage. 
All its acts are subject to the approval of the prefect or the 
central government, and the latter may dissolve the council. 

Such conditions do not seem very encouraging at first to an 
American student; but the situation, as compared with the 
past in France, is full of promise. Political interest is steadily 
growing in the communes, and Frenchmen are learning more and 
more to use the field of self-government open to them. 

The French system of law seems to an American or an Eng¬ 
lishman to be wanting in safeguards for personal liberty. Unlike 
the previous French constitutions, the present constitution has 
no “ hill of rights” That is, there are no provisions in the 
fundamental law regarding jury trial, habeas corpus privileges, 
or the right of free speech. Even if there were, the courts 
could not protect the individual from arbitrary acts of the 
government by appealing to such provisions, because,, in case 
of conflict between a citizen and the government, the suit 
is tried, not in the ordinary courts, but in administrative courts , 2 
made up of government officials. This does not mean that, 
in ordinary times, an accused man is likely to suffer injustice. 
As a rule, the administrative courts mete out fair treatment. 

1 Paris ancl Lyons are each organized as a department, with even less self- 
government than the other departments of the country. 

2 Lowell, Governments and Parties , I, 50-55, or Greater European Govern¬ 
ments, index. 


No bill 
of rights 


Administra¬ 
tive courts 


498 


FRANCE UNDER THE REPUBLIC 


Education 


Increase of 
wealth 


But in case of any supposed danger to the government, they 
vmy become its champions — at the expense of the rights of a 
citizen. This fact was forced upon the world’s attention some 
years ago in the infamous Dreyfus trials. This case is a good 
topic for special report by a strong student. It is only too true, 
however, that in times of excited feeling other democracies have 
shown quite as serious a disregard of personal liberty. 

The zeal of the early Revolutionists for education (p. 300) 
has been noted. Said Danton, -Next to bread, education is 
t ie first need of a people.” But, for want of time and money, 
their plans came to little; and for a long time after the Restora¬ 
tion, nothing was done. In 1827 over a third of the communes 
of France had no primary school whatever, and nearly a third 
of the population could neither read nor write. 


The real growth of popular education dates from the Third 
Republic. Almost as soon as the Franco-Prussian war was 
over, France adopted in large measure the German plan for 
schools — with certain improvements. To-day, in every com¬ 
mune there is a primary school or group of schools. Education 
IS ree and compulsory and strictly regulated by the state. That 
is, the central government appoints teachers and regulates the 
courses of study. Each department has an excellent system 
o secondary schools, called lycees, and the higher institutions 
are among the most famous in the world. From about 1890 
they began to be sought by great numbers of advanced Amer¬ 
ican students, who were more and more repelled by the un- 
emocratic atmosphere of German universities. When its 
recent birth is considered, the educational system of France is 
marvelously efficient. France has taken once more a first 
place in Europe in literature, art, and science. 

The advance of industry under the Third Republic has been 
enormous In the forty years 1871-1911, the yearly pro- 
ductmn of wealth tripled (rising from one billion to three 

' 10nS 0f dollars ln value ), though population grew less than 
one twentieth In 1870, thirteen million tons of coal were 

mined, in 1911, forty-two millions, In 1870, less than 3000 


EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY 499 

patents weie granted to inventors; in 1911, the number was 
nearly 15,000. 

All this is the more remarkable when we remember that 
in losing Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, France had lost 
its richest iron districts — an almost indispensable source 
of wealth in modern times. 

In the World War, at the very opening, Germany seized 
upon most of the remaining mineral districts of France, 
including all her coal fields, and held them to the close. 

Despite that fact, France actually increased her output of 
steel and iron manufactures during the war — finding a 
new source of energy in the water power of the slopes of the 
Pyrenees. 

But France is preeminently an agricultural country. The The French 
peculiar thing about French society, down to the War, has been P easantr y 
the large number of small landowners and the prosperity of 
this landed peasantry. In 1900, more than half the entire 
population lived on the soil, and three fourths the soil was under 
crops. The great mass of cultivators owned little farms of from 
five to fifty acres; 3,000,000 proprietors had less than twenty- 
five acres each. The cultivation was scientific in a high degree. 

France supplied her population with foodstuffs, and exported a 
large surplus. The subdivision of the soil was carried so far 
that it was difficult to introduce the best machinery (though 
neighborhood associations were being founded to own machinery 
in common); but the peasant was intelligent, industrious, 
thrifty, prosperous, happy, and conservative. 

The peasant wished to educate his son, and he had a high Population 
standard of living, compared with other European peasantry. stationar y 
With five or six children, a farmer owning five or ten acres 
found it almost impossible to keep up this high standard, and 
to leave his children as well off as he himself had been. There¬ 
fore the peasantry have not wished large families, and for a long 
time population has been almost stationary. By the census of 
1911 it was a little under forty millions. The recovery of 


500 


FRANCE UNDER THE REPUBLIC 


A nation of 
“ little 
capitalists ” 


Alsace-Lorraine, with its two millions of people, somewhat 
more than balances in numbers the losses in the War. 

This population was a “nation of little savers,” and conse¬ 
quently a nation of money lenders. Through the nineteenth 
century, England was the world’s banker. In 1900, France 
was beginning to hold that place. When a government wished 
to float” a huge loan, or when capitalists wished to finance 
some vast industrial enterprise, France commonly furnished 
the cash. She furnished England cash for the Boer war, and 
Russia cash for the war with Japan (p. 557), and American 
bankers and capitalists the sums needful to tide over the 
“crisis” of 1907-1908. 


England still had more wealth than France; but it was 
largely fixed” in long-time investments, while French wealth 
was growing rapidly and was held by a great number of people 
of small means, all seeking constantly for investments The 
French national debt was not held, like the American or the 
inglish, in 1911, by men of great wealth, in large amounts, but 
by some 3,000,000 French people, - shopkeepers, clerks, 
artisans, day-laborers, small farmers,— in small amounts. 
Ihe 1-rench government under the Third Republic had encour¬ 
aged this tendency of the workingman and the peasant to save 
and to “ invest,” by issuing its bonds in small denominations — 
as low even as one franc (20 cents). An American who wished 
to invest in United States bonds had to have at least $100 

it j tl T’^ an , d then he ° ften found !t hard to S et a bond. 
Under the Third Republic a Frenchman with 20 cents (1 franc) 

has no difficulty in buying a national certificate in any village 

France was the first country to adopt this admirable plan 

of encouragmg aH citizens to become “ bondholders ”-and 

stockho ders m the national prosperity.” The plan was 

followed by the United States, with the War Savings Stamps, 
during the World War. 

German invasion in the War of 1914-1918 has made much 
o ic fairest part of France a hideous desert, and has drained 
the rest of workers and of wealth. But the heroic people who 


POLITICS AND PARTIES 


501 


for five terrible years of war showed a devotion to their country 
unsurpassed in history may be trusted now quickly to re-create 
her material prosperity by their skill and industry. 

Politics in France have been, much of the time, upon a lower 
level than business life. The best minds of France have not 
been present in the Assembly. That body has been broken 
into many parties (nine in the election of 1914); and the 
ministries have been kaleidoscopic in their changes. The 40 
years from 1875 to 1915 saw 50 ministries. This meant woe¬ 
ful confusion and inefficiency; and the government has suffered 
from red tape and from a widespread taint of corruption in 
politics. As in America in the seventies and eighties of the 
last century, the government has been unworthy of the people, 
and, down to the World War, it had been a mighty factor in 
bringing disrepute upon the nation. 

One promising feature was the growth of the Socialists into 
a true political party, working by regular constitutional means, 
not any longer by revolution. After 1900 the Socialists gained 
power rapidly; and, in the election of 1914, they became the 
largest of the nine elements in the Assembly. All recent min¬ 
istries had contained leading Socialists, but the war called back 
to power more conservative statesmen — in the war ministry 
of Clemenceau, “the Tiger.” 

About 1750 France bade fair to be the great colonial power 
of the world. The century-long duel with England was then 
half over. “New France” was written on the map across the 
valley of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, and the 
richest lands of the Orient seemed within the French grasp. 
Thirteen years later saw France stripped of all possessions 
outside Europe, except a few unimportant islands in the 
Indian Ocean and in the Antilles and some small ports in 
India (pp. 244-245). 

In the nineteenth century France became again a colonial 
power. In 1830 the government of Charles X took advantage 
of an insult by the Dey of Algiers to a French consul to seize 


French 
politics: 
shifting 
ministries 


Loss of the 
old Colonies 


A new 
colonial 
empire 
since 1830 


502 


FRANCE UNDER THE REPUBLIC 


French 

Algeria 


And Tunis 


territory in North Africa. In the middle of the century this 
foothold had grown, through savage and bloody wars, into 
complete military occupancy of Algeria; and in the early 
years of the Third Republic civil rule was introduced. Since 
1880 , Algeria has been not so much a foreign possession, or a 
colony, as a part of h ranee separated from the rest by a strip 
of sea. The French make only a small part of the population, 
it is true, but the country is orderly and civilized. The settled 
portion, near the coast, is divided into three Departments, which 
are ruled essentially like the Departments in European France; 
and it has representatives in the French legislature. The 
inland parts of Algeria are still barbarous and disorderly, but 
to this long-desolate Barbary coast, French rule has restored 
the fertility and bloom that belonged to it as the garden of the 
ancient Roman world. 

Nearly all the rest of the vast French colonial empire has been 
secured since the Franco-Prussian War. Algeria was of course 
only one of five great states on the Mediterranean coast of 
Africa, — Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Tripoli, Egypt. All five 
had long been virtually independent Mohammedan kingdoms, 
though in name they had remained part of the decaying Turkish 
Empire. And all five, until Europeans stepped in, were in a 
vicious state of misrule, disorder, and tyranny. We have seen 
how in 1881 Egypt fell under England’s “protection” (p. 469 ) 
France quickly regretted that she had so easily given up her 
claim to share in that rich land; and so in the same year she 
seized gladly upon disorders in Tunis as an excuse for extending 
her authority, from Algeria eastward, over that country, mak¬ 
ing it a protectorate.” That is, France announced that she 
would control all the relations of Tunis with the outside world 
but would leave unvexed its government over its own subjects at 
home — except that Frenchmen were to enjoy certain special 
trading privileges there. Before the World War, this “protec¬ 
torate” had been changed fully into a colonial possession — 
a change quite inevitable under such conditions because of the 
incompetence and misrule of the native sovereigns. 



THE COLONIAL EMPIRE 


503 


Then, in 1904, France began in like fashion to extend her 
sway in North Africa toward the west; establishing a protec¬ 
torate over part of Morocco. Spain had long controlled one 
part of that district; and, in 1905 at a European conference, it 
was agreed that France and Spain should oversee the country 
in partnership spite of a violent attempt by the German 
Kaiser to secure an equal footing there. 

Befoie seizing upon Tunis in 1881, — an act sure to 
arouse violent resentment in Italy, which looked upon Tunis 
as her own prey the French government thought it 
necessary to lay its plans before Bismarck. That astute 
statesman at that time had not begun to have any colonial 
ambition for Germany, and he encouraged the French 
project, welcoming the chance to arouse hostility between 
France and Italy. (Indeed, with characteristic crooked¬ 
ness, he at the same moment encouraged Italy to hope 
for Tunis.) Soon afterward, however (p. 520), Germany 
herself entered the race for colonial empire; and in 1911 
an extension of French rule in Morocco almost plunged 
Europe into war. William II of Germany sent a warship 
to Agadir, a harbor of Morocco, and “rattled the saber 
in the scabbard.” But England supported France; and 
Germany was finally appeased by European consent to 
her seizing territory in the Kamerun (West Africa) and by 
the cession to her of part of the French Congo territory. 

France has possessions in other parts of Africa. From the 
time of her ancient colonial empire she has always kept a hold 
upon Senegal; and since 1884 she has acquired huge possessions 
on both the east and west coasts, besides the great island of 
Madagascar (map facing p. 553). 

In America she holds Guiana (Cayenne), with a few ports 
in the Antilles. In Oceanica, between 1884 and 1887 she ob¬ 
tained New Caledonia and several smaller islands. Her most 
important colonies, outside Africa, are in the peninsula of Indo- 
China in southeastern Asia. Napoleon III seized Cambodia 


And 

Morocco 


German 

rivalry 


Other 
French 
colonies in 
Africa 


And in Asi» 


504 


French 

colonial 

admin¬ 

istration 


FRANCE UNDER THE REPUBLIC 

(1862) and Cochin China (1863); and the Third Republic, 
with little more scruple, seized Tonking in 1884, Anam in 1886, 
and Siam to the Mekong in a savage war in 1893-1896. For 
many years, moreover, the “imperialistic” forces in France 
( jingo politicians and some large business interests) have 
sought an indirect control in Syria much like that which Ger¬ 
many was trying to establish in Asia Minor. 

Tlw methods, then, hy which France has secured most of her 
colonial empire have been about the same as those common 
with civilized” states in dealings with barbarous and weak 

peoples. But French rule has always been gentle, kindly, and, 
on the whole, wise. 

At the same time, France is not herself a colonizing nation — 
any more than in the seventeenth century (p. 245). Large 
parts of her empire in Africa are almost unpeopled, or are 
inhabited by savage tribes and are under military government 
The total population of French colonies (not' counting the 
protectorates”) is about 41 millions. But even in the settled 
portions the European population is small. The total area of 
the colonial possessions is about four million square miles, of 
which about three and a half million are in Africa. All the 
settled and orderly regions have a share in self-government 
and most of them have representatives in the legislature at 


fr ,nf 0R F . CR , THEE , R f ADING ~ The works mentioned on page 401 
tinue to be valuable for France well into the Third Republic The 

rsrcrf—-*- - 

For recent history of all European countries, every high school should 
have one or more good Reviews accessible or in the reading “ 
besides an International Year Book or The Statesman’s Year Book al 

stxr or tiurd ^ and »• ™—- £ 






CHAPTER XXXVII 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1914 

The national industry of Prussia is war. — Mirabeau, in 1790. 

The Germanic Confederation of 1814-1867 was a loose con¬ 
federacy of sovereign states. The German Empire of 1871- 
1918 was a federal state (p. 418). The central government was 
strengthened by the change, somewhat as was ours in America 
when we exchanged our Articles of Confederation for our pres¬ 
ent Constitution. 

But this German “federated” Empire was not a “free” govern¬ 
ment. Federations are usually made up of republics: this 
one was made up mainly of monarchic states (4 kingdoms, 
18 duchies, 3 “free cities”). The controlling body in the 
Empire was the Federal Council, or Bundesrath, consisting 
during most of its history of 56 delegates, appointed by the rulers 
of the different states and directed from day to day by those 
princes. Prussia had seventeen of these delegates, — and 
fourteen could negative any change in the constitution. The 
Bundesrath prepared measures for the legislature, and had a 
veto upon all laws. 

The imperial legislature was the Reichstag — a one-House 
assembly elected by manhood suffrage. Of the 397 delegates, 
Prussia had 236. Practically, the power of this assembly was 
limited to accepting or rejecting proposals from the Bundesrath. 
Even its control over taxation was incomplete. Most revenue 
measures were not annual appropriations, but standing laws. 
That is, once passed, they could not be changed without the 
consent of the Bundesrath. The imperial ministry, appointed 
by the Emperor, was called “responsible”; but this was not 
in the English sense. The ministry was not obliged to resign 

505 


A despotic 

federal 

state 


The Federal 
Council 


The 

Reichstag 


506 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


The 

Emperor 
an autocrat 


tf outvoted in the Reichstag. The Reichstag was little more 
than a debat,ng society - but a debating society had value 
in a land where otherwise there was no free speech. 

In 1909 the “ territory ” of Alsace was given statehood, and at 
that time the number of delegates in the Reichstag was some¬ 
what increased. The constitution had promised “periodic” 
^apportionment of representatives, to suit changes in popula¬ 
tion ; but during the life of the Empire none took place, though 
population shifted greatly - so that industrial and democratic 
Berlin came to have three times as many people as all Junker 
East Prussia, though it had only the same number of representa¬ 
tives. In the American Congress, during that period, we had 
four reapportionments. 

In theory, the Emperor was only the life president of the 
federatiom But this life presidency was hereditary in the 
kings of Prussia - somewhat as if the governor of New York 
were ex-officio President of the United States. Moreovel, tW 
was no provision for impeaching the Emperor; and, through 
his contro over the ministry and over so large a part of the 
Bundesrath (he appointed the large Prussian delegation), he 

SX “* ”“" y “ **“ 

Sian consti- h J h<! Emperor h f d sW mightier authority in the Empire from 

Tr « fi L P0S IT ^ t SP0UC rUUr ° f Prussia ■ had three 

848 -, 9 X 8 fifths of the population of the Empire, and more than that part 

Of the power. Her own divine-right “constitution” was^he 

one granted” by the king in ’48 (p. 396). The upper House 

bieoted P SS1M 8 ' S ' atU , re Was an hereditary body composed of 
igoted Prussian Junker nobility. The lower House was 

eected; and all male citizens were supposed to have a voice 

to L°r g 11 , J!Ut tke pe ° ple mted in three ehM'Sf.s, according 
to wealth, in such a way as to give two thirds the representation 

of 1900 ) ° ne S 'f l ° f the V ° terS - In Berlin in the election 

Ot 190. a rich man s vote counted for that of fifty poor men.' 

1 For illustrations, see Davis’ Roots of the War., 


The Prus- 
















































































































AUTOCRACY 


507 


Then the legislature had little authority anyway. The king 
could adjourn or dissolve it, and could veto its acts absolutely. 
His ministers, too, were beyond its control. (Cf. p. 415.) 

The other states of the Empire were less despotic. All had 
representative legislatures; but few of them gave these legis¬ 
latures real control over the administration. In general, South 
Germany was less military and more democratic than Prussia. 

The imperial government was frugal and was supposed to be 
exceedingly honest and efficient, until at the close of the World 
War we learned that it had allowed privileged wealth to fatten 
upon the misery of the poor. It claimed to be paternal in the 
extreme. It made justice in the courts easy to secure; it 
guarded against food adulteration long before the rest of the 
world did; and in other ways it zealously protected the public 
health. 

But, alongside this watchful paternalism, there were grievous 
faults. Germany had been made by violence, and the result 
showed in the spirit of militarism and in the predominance of 
the methods of the drill sergeant and the policeman. A policeman’s 
evidence in a court had undue weight against independent wit¬ 
nesses, and his rule was all-pervading. Said a keen foreign 
observer (1896): — “The policeman strolls into your house 
or garden when he likes, much as a master enters the classroom 
to see that all is going on properly. If you go for a bath, he 
will forbid you to get out of your depth, swim you never so 
strongly. . . . To live in Germany always seems to me like 
a return to the nursery.” 

Even worse was the contemptuous and oftentimes brutal 
treatment of civilians by army officers. For years the news¬ 
papers contained reports of gross and unprovoked insults, and 
sometimes of violent assaults, by officers upon unoffending 
citizens, for which it was difficult to obtain redress in the courts. 
The most famous of these perhaps is the “Zabern incident.” 

Zabern, a little city in Alsace, contained a small garrison. 
Among the officers was a young Baron von Forstner, typical 


Prussia 
and South 
Germany 


The 
Empire 
a paternal 
despotism 


Militarism 


508 


The 

“ Zabern 
incident ” 


No security 
for personal 
liberty 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 

Prussian junker. This young “hero” had already given occa¬ 
sion for one military trial because of trouble with citizens, and 
in November of 1913 he quarreled on the street with a lame 
shoemaker, who, he thought, failed to show him due deference. 
Feeling his “honor” injured, the noble baron drew his saber 
and hacked down the cripple — whom two soldiers were holding 
for the purpose. For this a court-martial sentenced the officer 
to one year in custody; but a higher court-martial at once 
reversed this judgment, and acquitted the baron as having acted 
only “in self-defense.” Socialists in the Reichstag took up 
t e case, and carried an overwhelming “vote of censure” upon 
the ministry — which had arrogantly defended the rowdy. 

ns meant nothing. In any other parliament, the ministry 
would have resigned. But this German ministry smiled in- 
solently and went on with their “order of the day.” 

Nor was there any security for personal rights against even 
the non-mditary government. True, the constitution contained 
a bill of rights, but the courts had no power to declare void an 
unconstitutional law. The administration, too, could appeal 
cases ill w ich it was interested to administrative courts with¬ 
out junes. As a result, trial by jury, freedom of the press, 
freedom of public meetings, and free speech existed only in a 
united degree To criticize the Emperor in the press, ever so 
ig i y, was likely to land the offender in jail for a considerable 
erm. In January, 1898, it was reported on good authority 
at seventy German editors were in prison for that offense 
ie following anecdote illustrates how limited is the right of 

festi™,7T g ' ^ 1897 8 landed Pr ° prietOT a harvest 
lood N a WOrkmen - Some fif ty i" all, they marched to a 

seve^ of th 3 PICmC ' A fCW dayS kter the P ro P r * e tor and 
several of the men were arrested on the charge of having held 

a public meeting without notifying the police. No other fault 

was alleged but the offenders were sentenced to fines or short 
terms in jail. 

1 Russell’s Social Democracy 48_ro muno • 
famous trial of the Socialist Lassalle (p. 515) “ S ‘ m8 aCC0unt a 


AUTOCRACY 


509 


This autocracy was upheld most of all by the landed squires, The junkers 
or junkers. Says Dr. Davis (Roots of the War, 188), — “A 
typical junker was the owner of a large landed property with a 
picturesque and uncomfortable ancient schloss (castle) dominat¬ 
ing a village or town, where peasant children scrambled with 
pigs and chickens in the great dungheaps before the houses. 

He might come to enjoy city life. ... He might reform his 
agricultural methods. . . . None the less he remained heart 
and soul a country aristocrat . . . accustomed to curse his 
inferiors, to cane his servants, and to despise all who lived by 
trade.’ 5 

This class furnished the officers of the army. For most of 
them, indeed, the army was the only possible career. Pay was 
pitifully small, and the nobles were poor. But the officer’s 
social standing made it easy for him to find a wife among the 
daughters of wealthy merchants. No officer, however, could 
make such a marriage until a committee of higher officers had 
approved the bride—and the dower which was to atone for her 
ignoble blood. 

The autocracy had one other pillar—a new element in Ger- German 
man life. The junkers were largely Prussian and rural. But Business” 
after 1870 Germany began to grow into a city Germany. The 
“industrial revolution,” with the factory system, which had 
grown up in England before 1800 and in France by 1825, did 
not begin to make headway in Germany until nearly 1870. 

Then, indeed, manufactures and trade grew by leaps — aided 
by the coal and iron of Alsace-Lorraine and by subsidies from 
the huge war indemnity just then robbed of France. Science 
became the servant of manufactures as it had not before been 
in any other country. Especially was chemistry applied suc¬ 
cessfully to industries like the manufacture of dyes — which 
became practically a German monopoly. The whole artisan 
class, too, were trained to “efficiency” in trade schools, — which 
were distinctly class schools, suited on this German plan to an 
undemocratic land only, in which the son of an artisan must 
look for no “higher” station than his father. 


510 


The Prus¬ 
sian army 
system 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 

All this meant a tremendous growth of cities. Hamburg 
grew from 350,000 people in 1870 to 1,000,000 in 1910; Berlin 
from 820,000 to 2,000,000; Essen from 50,000 to 300,000; while 
many wholly new centers of trade appeared where had been 
only farming hamlets. The population of the Empire doubled 
in these forty years, and all this increase was a city increase — 
w ich meant that the old city population was multiplied four¬ 
fold. Along with this change, there appeared a new figure 

!" ® e ™ an . lfe ’ tbe P rincel y manufacturing capitalist. After 
880, the thousands of this class took their place — alongside 
the Junker nobility - as a chief support of German autocracy 

with a vivid expectation of favors to be received in form of 
special privileges. 

The war revealed this class as gross exploiters, fattening on 
their country s need. In no other land did war-profiteering 
prosper on so large a scale as in Germany, where the general 

WaS , S ° , ter : iblc ; This ^owth of huge war-fortunes 
a shown P amly by the government’s income-tax reports in 
1918, as published in German papers. 

The junker and the capitalist made public opinion, but the 
autocracy had also its physical arm. After 1866, the Prussian 
army system was extended over all Germany. The fundamental 
principle was the universal obligation of all males to serve 
The army was the armed nation. At twenty each man was 
supposed to enter the ranks for two years’ active service. For 
ye years more he was a member of the “active reserves” 
with two months in camp each year. These reserves were to 
e called out for regular service in case of war. For twelve 
years more he was listed in the territorial reserve - liable for 
garrison duty in time of war, and even for front rank service 

to :r ' f Ex T Ption from tra mmg was usually allowed 
O the only son of a dependent widow, to students of theologv 
and to those unfit because of physical defects ^ ’ 

The Prussian victories of 1866 and 1870 convinced all Europe 
o the superiority of this system over the old professional armies, 


MILITARISM 


511 


and nearly every state in Europe soon adopted it, with slight 
variations as to age and exemptions. Europe became a group 
of armed camps. Along with this went ever increasing atten¬ 
tion to improved rifles, larger cannon, and other costly arma¬ 
ment. The burden was enormous, and the direct cost was 
far less than the indirect cost involved in withdrawing so large 
a part of each man’s best years from productive work. Eng¬ 
land, trusting to her navy, and the United States, trusting 
to her position, were the only large countries that dared refuse 
the crushing burden — and for England the cost of her navy 
was almost as serious. Certain good results, no doubt, as 
well as many evil ones, came from the military discipline; but 
on the whole that army system was the most woeful waste of 
human energy the world ever saw. 

Worse still, this militarism was a constant temptation to 
war; and, in Germany, the worst result was the way in which it 
helped to make the masses servile in private life under the rule 
of king, junker, and policeman. Flogging and other brutal 
punishment for slight offenses was the rule in the Prussian army; 
and there are reliably reported numerous cases of suicide by 
soldiers who were so mistreated by officers that they could no 
longer live in decent self-respect. Those who submitted to 
such “ discipline ” became slaves. 

Militarism was one phase of the Prussian danger to the 
world, as autocracy was the other phase. Militarism is not 
the same thing as having a large army, though it is likely 
to grow out of having one. Militarism is a state of mind re¬ 
garding the army: a habit of thinking that the army is the 
most important matter, of exalting it above the civil powers 
at home, and of trusting to force in relations with other nations 
rather than to justice and good will and reason. In the long 
run, too, militarism leads to a servile attitude on the part of 
the people toward army officers, wholly incompatible with 
democracy. 1 

1 War Encyclopedia, under “Militarism” and “Prussianism” ; and C. 
Altschul’s German Militarism and Its German Critics, esp. pp. 20-21. 


Europe 
adopts the 
German 
army system 


Militarism 


512 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


Divine 

Right 

Emperors 


Kaiser 
Wilhelm II 


The Emperor, head of the government and of the army 

7 took the “ 7 ° f di n ine right At hiS eoronation < William 

the crown from the communion table, declaring, “The 

hinds “Z y {r r G ° d ’ and 1 have received £« His 
a ds. And in an election manifesto of 1882, he reminded 

theo tT V flf 7 he dUty WkiCh V ° U kme SWOrn t0 per f° rm Pn 

i i <0 SUPV ° rting tke *** * * 

■ In 1888 William was succeeded by his son, Frederick III 

h redenck was an admirer of parliamentary government upon 

the English pattern. His wife Victoria was a daughter of 'the 

great English queen; and he had long been hostile to Bismarck 

ut Frederick was suffermg from a fatal disease at the time of 

is accession, and his three months’ reign brought no change 
m the government. ge 

William II the son of Frederick, returned to the principles 
o his grandfather. As a youth, he had been a great adm^r 
O Bismarck; but it soon became plain that the two men were 
each too masterful to work together, and in 1890 the Emperor 
curtly dismissed the Chancellor from office. Thereafter 
Wilham II himself directed the policy of the Empire aid 
he was a greater force in European politics than any oth j 

Zw'ZZ A" ^ beHeVed thM0U ^ - the “dWffie 

" theory, and he repeatedly stated it in as striking a form 

• ever did James I of England or Louis XIV of France two 
or three centuries ago. trance, two 

In the Visitors’ Book in the Town Hall Mnn' u u 
“TI.O tttUi <? i . 11 ot Munich, he wrote 

t i2" l i. , " s n ,s “ p "“ <»» 

o»d b„ tS h”' ,h ” ,pir “ 

Tn 18Q1 II s sworcl anc * His vice-regent ” 

In 1891, m an address to a body of military recruits he said • 
Vou are now mv soldiers v™, n • ne sam * 

body and soul Til ' , ® g ' Ven ■ voursel ''es to me, 

is my enemy ’ In th “ ?° W bUt £ ° ne 6nemy for you > and th at 
s my enemy I n these times of socialistic intrigue it ,m,v 

happen that I shall ordpr g e ’ it may 

fathers Tn ,,, . y ° U t0 &e u P on brothers or 

athers. In such case you are bound to obey me without 


DIVINE-RIGHT AUTOCRACY 


513 


a murmur!” In 1897, in a prepared address, he set forth 
at length his office as a “vice-regent of God”; and the same 
year, his brother Henry, when about to set sail for China, in 
command of a German expedition, used the following words 
in a public address to the Emperor : “ Of one thing I can assure 
Vour Majesty. Neither fame nor laurels have charm for me. 

One thing is the aim that draws me on: it is to declare in for¬ 
eign lands the evangel of Your Majesty’s hallowed 'person .” “All- 
Highest” was a recognized form of address for the Emperor. 

And the phrase ironically attributed to him — “Me und Gott” 

— is no great exaggeration of the patronizing way in which he 
often referred to the Almighty as a partner in his enterprises 

— as in the famous address at Berlin in 1901 : “ We shall con¬ 
quer even though we be surrounded by enemies; for there 
lives a powerful ally, the old, good God in heaven, who ever 
since the time of the Great Elector has always been on our 
side.” 

Some survey like the foregoing is needful to guard us against Germany 
the “tyranny of names.” England and Germany in 1914 were and England 
both “ constitutional monarchies ” ; but that does not mean that 
they were in any way alike, even in government. They stood 
at the two poles of government. England had a democratic 
government, in which the monarchic and aristocratic survivals 
were practically powerless—mere matters of form ; the German 
Empire was one of the most absolute autocracies in the world. 

England’s ideals were based upon industry and world-peace: 

Germany’s ideals were based upon militarism and conquest. 
Englishmen thought of the “state” as a condition for the full 
development of the individual man: Germans thought of 
individual men as existing primarily for the sake of the ab¬ 
solutist state. German capitalism was perhaps in itself no 
more grasping and greedy than like forces in other countries. 

But in England, America, or France, those forces must cease 
to work evil whenever the majority of the people are wise enough 
and good enough to will it so — and vote so : in Germany that 
capitalistic greed was backed by an irresistible military despot- 


514 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


Bismarck’s 

rule 


The struggle 
with the 
Catholic 
church 


or’buHrtT* Wh ' Ch the maSSeS W6le P ° WerIess ’ either b y ballots 

F° r nearly twenty years after the Empire was established, 
Bismarck directed its course. The “Iron Chancellor” was a 
n.ler of tremendous power of will; but he carried his policy 

t e ,M lr ° n ” int ° dvil affairs -an<l failed. Three 
contests fill the period: the kulturkampf; the attempt to 

suppress the Socialists; the attempt to Germanize the border 
provinces. 

1. The Empire had brought Catholic and Protestant Ger¬ 
many under one government. This resulted at once in a 
serious conflict between church and state. The immediate out- 

cCncilTlsT"^ Cti ° n I* a fam ° US d6Cree ° f the Vatican 

Council of 18/0, affirming the pope to be infallible (incapable 

' " I ° r f ) , m m f terS of falth and “orals. The German bishops 
at the Council, true to the old traditions of Germany, refused 

to assent to this new statement, and withdrew in a body 

ithm a year they had for the most part fallen into line; but 

oTcl r em I T ntained their P° sition and took the name of 
t ( f ThlS S6Ct TOS S0 ° n attacked vigorously by the 

b ' 3hopS - Ins true tors in the clerical schools who did 

ffi eaC u °gma of infallibility were suspended from their 

offices and excommunicated; teachers in the primary schools 
weie ismissed; and the orthodox clergy refused to perform 
marriage ceremony for followers of the Old Catholics, 
en Bismarck stepped in for the defense of the Old Catho- 

to'a’ssert th PParen% ^ T “* f ° r S ° good an occasion 
to assert the supremacy of the state over the church. Under 

privlte^uul ’ 1 ° . egIS,ature took marriage and all education, 

P ate and public, from the control of the church The 

Jesuits were expelled from Germany; the state assumed control 

over the education of priests; and the church was forbidden to 

exc u«le its own members except with government permission 

ie bishops and orthodox clergy formally refused to obey 

these laws, and Bismarck fell back upon a series of violent 

measures. Priests were deprived of office, and were even pum 


GERMAN SOCIALISM 


515 


ished by long terms of imprisonment or by exile. The pope 
protested, and in 1875 he declared that the anti-clerical laws 
ought not to be obeyed. The Empire had already withdrawn its 
ambassador from the papal court, and Bismarck now confis¬ 
cated ecclesiastical salaries and took into the government’s 
hands all the property and revenues of the church, at the 
same time expelling all Catholic religious orders. 

These measures have been described as having a military 
character, — “ designed to cut off the enemy from his commis¬ 
sariat and to deprive him of his most active troops.” From 
1875 to 1879, the government held its position. One fifth 
the parishes in Prussia had no clergy; schools and seminaries 
were closed; chairs of theology in the German universities 
were vacant; houses of the clergy were raided by the police; 
and numbers of men of devoted Christian lives and broad schol¬ 
arship languished in prison or in exile. 

This persecution, however, was ineffective against the heroic 
resistance of the clergy, and it steadily lost favor among the 
people. A strong and growing “ Catholic” party in the Reichs¬ 
tag, “the Center ,” hampered all Bismarck’s projects ; and finally 
he was forced to make terms with it, in order to secure the legis¬ 
lation he desired against the Socialists and for tariffs. In 1880 
the government began its retreat; and it abandoned step by 
step every position it had assumed in the quarrel. The chief 
result of the contest was the large, watchful Conservative 
party, “the Center,” during the rest of the life of the Empire. 
Bismarck had failed utterly. 

2. Socialism did not become prominent in Germany until Bismarck 
after 1848. German Socialism was founded by Karl Marx Socialists 
(p. 383), but its teachings were thrown among the masses 
by Lassalle, a brilliant writer and orator. When manhood 
suffrage was introduced in the election of the Reichstag 
of the North German Confederation, the Socialists got their 
first chance. They held eight seats in the Reichstag of 1867. 

Faithful to their doctrine of human brotherhood, these men 
in 1870 earnestly opposed the war with France, especially after 


516 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


it became a war for conquest, and they criticized the seizure 
of Alsace-Lorraine against the will of the inhabitants. 

This “unpatriotic” attitude resulted in a check. The leaders 
were tried for treason and condemned to years of imprison¬ 
ment; and in the first Imperial Reichstag (1871) the party had 

only two representatives. But in 1874 the number had risen to 
nine, and in 1877, to twelve. 

Bismarck then began to feel it needful to put down Socialism. 
His first effort to secure repressive laws from the Reichstag 
ailed, but it called out two attempts by Socialist fanatics 
to assassinate the Emperor (1877, 1878). The criminals had 
no sanction from the Social Democratic party; and they played 
into Bismarck’s hands. Taking swift advantage of popular 
alarm, he dissolved the Reichstag; and the new election gave 
a legislature ready to go all lengths against the “Red Specter.” 
New laws gave the government authority to dissolve associations, 
break up meetings, confiscate publications, suspend habeas 
corpus privileges and jury trial, and banish suspects by decree 
wit lout any trial at all. Not content with these extraordinary 
powers, Bismarck made them retroactive, and at once banished 
from Berlin sixty or seventy men who had formerly been con- 
nected with the Socialists. 

The Socialists met this ruthless severity with as much forti¬ 
tude and heroism > as the Catholic clergy had shown in their 

T 0n ffi«i' ‘ a ‘ Sm f ° r a tlme became an underground current, 
n 1881, just after the beginning of the repressive legislation, 
the Socialist vote fell off somewhat; but in the election of 1884 
it had risen to over half a million - much more than ever be- 
- and in 188/ it was over three fourths of a million. Then 
e repressive laws were allowed to expire; and in 1890 the 
vote was doubled. Again the Iron Chancellor had failed 
During the latter part of the struggle, it is true, Bismarck 
used also a wiser policy of cutting the ground from under the 
leet of the Socialist agitators by improving the condition of 
e wor ing classes, along lines pointed out by the Socialists 
1 For an account, see Russell, Social Democracy , 103-114. 


BISMARCK AND SOCIALISM 


517 


themselves. In 1884, he said, — “Give the workingman the 
right to work while he is well, and assure him care when he is 
sick, and maintenance when he is old, and the Social Demo¬ 
crats will get no hold upon him.” 

In accordance with these principles, Bismarck favored the 
introduction of great public works to afford employment, and 
he created a state fund to help insure the injured and the aged. 

(1) The state compelled the laborers to insure against sickness. 

(2) It insured them against accident, taking the premium from 
the employer. And (3) it paid old-age pensions to men over 
seventy years of age, out of a fund created partly by payments 
from the insured, partly by payments from the employers, and 
partly by a payment from the state treasury. 

In this “Social insurance,” Germany was a pioneer — though 
England and France have since passed by her. The condition 
of the laborers, however, remained miserable. The legislation 
was only a sop. It did not weaken Social Democracy. Indeed 
the Socialists railed at it as fear-inspired, poor-law legislation. 
To Bismarck, and to William II, it was the duty of the divine-right 
government to care for the laborer. To the Social Democrats, 
it is the right of the laborers themselves to control the govern¬ 
ment and to care for themselves through it. 

It is convenient here to carry the topic of Socialism down 
to the Great War. After 1898 the Socialists were much the 
largest political party, gaining heavily in every election. In 
1912 the total vote, 12,188,000, was split among fifteen parties, 
but the Socialists cast 4,239,000 of those votes — or more 
than twice as many as any other party. This was largely, 
no doubt, because the Socialist conventions had put first in 
their platforms a number of practical political and economic 
measures which the average American or Englishman would 
not regard as dangerous, — such as,universal suffrage (including 
“votes for women”); the initiative and referendum; equal 
electoral districts; payment of members of the Reichstag; 
responsibility of the government to the Reichstag; popular 


Bismarck 
tries state 
socialism 


Growth of 
the 

Socialist 

party 


518 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


local government; securities for free speech; a militia system 
in place of the army system; an eight-hour labor day* with 
prohibition of employment of children under fourteen ; free¬ 
dom to organize labor unions; and progressive income taxes 

criticism „f , ^ Rei ^ sta S’ speech was fairly free - as it was not 

the govern- ® sewhere in Germany and the Socialist deputies opposed 
ment bitterly the huge army and naval bills, with all the govern¬ 

ment’s long preparation for war. Sometimes this opposition 
became personal and vehement. In 1894 the Socialist deputies 
unanimously kept their seats, when, at the opening of the 
Reichstag, cheers for the Emperor were called for; and in 1909 
Philip Scheidemann exclaimed in debate that lying (“word- 

breaking”) was “the most characteristic tradition” of the 
Hohenzollerns. 

and'the* " ., II ’, t ' or at . irae ’ seemed disposed to use gentler methods 

Socialists lan those that Bismarck had followed; but he too soon 

at the gr0Wth 0f the Socialist vote, and in 
1894 1895 he tried vehemently to secure another “excep¬ 
tional law,” even more sweeping than Bismarck’s legislation, 
ihe proposed bill provided two years’ imprisonment for “pub¬ 
ic y attacking religion, the monarchy, marriage, the family 
or property, by insulting utterances.” Under such a law, to 
suggest a change in the government to a republican form,’ or 
indeed, to urge much milder changes, might constitute a crime • 
and so all Liberals joined with the Socialists in voting down 
the proposal. The Catholics did not dare to vote for it, lest 
their opposition to civil marriage should be treated as a crime. 


Bismarck 
and the 
frontier 
peoples 


3 Equally violent, and more long-continued, was Bismarck’s 
effort to Germanize the Poles of Posen, the Danes of Slesvig 

Ge™ T ° 6aCh ° f th6Se sul * ct P^es,’ 

Germany forbade all use of its own language. The Slesvig 

anes were not allowed to. teach any history in their schools 

prior to the time when they were seized by Prussia. The 

Poles were tempted by the government to sell their lands to 

German immigrants; and, when instead they sold cheap to 




GERMANIZING THE BORDER LANDS 


519 


their own race, the lands were seized by the government (with 
compensation). But even then the Germans whom the gov¬ 
ernment induced to settle in Posen rapidly became Poles in 
feeling, as those induced to settle in Alsace often became French. 
To the end, the delegates in the Reichstag from these three 
districts were always “in opposition” to the government. 
Again “blood and iron” failed, 1 though continued relentlessly 
for more than twenty years after Bismarck’s rule. When the 
World War began, a German statesman said truly, “In 
Alsace, we are in an enemy’s country.” The Prussian system, 
begotten of force, had confidence only in force — and so proved 
itself unfit for the problems of modern life. 

There should be no trouble in distinguishing between 
this policy of forceful Germanization of tmwilling, con¬ 
quered subjects, and our Americanization, by inducement, 
of those foreigners who of their own will have sought homes 
in our midst. 


In another matter, Bismarck’s failure was less blamable, 
but equally clear. The old Germany of his youth had been an 
agricultural country. Foreign trade had been of little conse¬ 
quence. The new capitalist and commercial Germany that 
grew up after 1870 he never felt any real sympathy for. He 
saw its force, in part, but he did not understand it, or like it. 
After a short resistance, in 1878, he yielded to its demands for 
high protective tariffs, and, finally, to demands for subsidies 
wherewith to build up lines of merchant marine, like the Ham- 
burg-American and North German Lloyd. But the manu¬ 
facturing interest began early to call also for a colonial empire, 
outside Europe, for a safe and “sole” market. This demand 
Bismarck resisted for years. He was intensely proud of the 
Germany he had made, and wished only to preserve it. 


Growth of 

German 

commerce 


The demand 
for a colonial 
empire 


1 A dramatic narrative of the failure, with much picturesque incident, 
is given in Davis’ Roots of the War, 226-248. There is admirable material 
there for a “special report” by a student to the class. 


520 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


Growth of 
the 

colonial 

empire 


And the 
fall of 
Bismarck 



But the manufacturers’ demand for colonies was supported 
also by a people’s demand. After 1880 the label “Made in 
Germany” began to be seen on all sorts of articles in all parts 
of the world, and before 1900 Germany had passed all countries 
except England and the United States in manufactures and 
trade. Still the nation was not content. Population was 

growing rapidly. In 1815. 
the states that made 
up the Germany of 1914 
counted only 25 million 
people. Now those lands 
had come to count 67 
millions — besides many 
million more who had 
sought homes in other 
lands. This growth had 
resulted in an immense 
emigration, mainly to the 
United States and to 
Argentina, Brazil, and 
other South American 
countries. And so, partly 


Bismarck, after dismissal from office. 
From a photograph. 


i , . to meet the commercial 

demands of the capitalists, and partly to keep future German 

emigrants under the German flag, Bismarck reluctantly adopted 
the policy of acquiring colonies. 


Bismarck announced this plan in 1881 At that time Ger- 
many had no possessions outside Europe, and no war navy 
ut, though late in entering the scramble for foreign possessions, 

fell mie ^ P T eSS ’ ih Part beCaUSe Engknd ! Ust then 
Ul httle eagerness for new realms. Then, in 1890, the young 

am II dismissed Bismarck from office. This act was due 

," " a UI ' a Confl * ct of ’ wills between two stubborn men 
but also partly to the fact that the new Emperor felt that 

he old Chancellor was “out of date.” William stood, not for 
ismarck s policy of preserving the great existing Germany of 



COLONIAL EXPANSION 


521 


that day, but for a new “Pan-German” policy of making Ger¬ 
many greater — by means even more unscrupulous than those 
Bismarck had used — until she should be world-mistress. 
To this end, he sought to get colonies more eagerly than Bis¬ 
marck had done. 

Thereafter the colonial empire mounted by leaps. At the 
opening of the World War, Germany had vast possessions in 
Africa (map facing p. 553), a million square miles in all, mainly 
on the Guinea coast and in South Africa on both east and west 
coasts. The English self-governing colonies in South Africa, 
dreading the neighborhood of German militarism, had warned 
the government in England of the German plans for seizing this 
last territory and had vainly implored England to act first. 
But England felt that she had lands enough, and she had no 
wish to arouse German envy needlessly. 

In like manner, spite of warnings and protests from Australia, 
England permitted Germany to occupy much of the rich island 
of New Guinea. In the western Pacific also Germany secured 
many valuable groups of islands, and shortly after 1890 she 
began to obtain “concessions” in Asia Minor from the 
Turkish government. She did not get absolute title to terri¬ 
tory there, but she secured, by treaties, many valuable rights of 
trade and of railroad building in those rich regions ; and she ex¬ 
pected some time to convert these claims into full ownership. 

As a means to this end, the German government began to 
cultivate the favor of the Sultan of Turkey on all occasions, 
some of them shameful. The growing moral sense in inter- 
* national matters in England made it no longer possible for that 
country after 1880 to bolster up the dastard rule of the Turk 
over subject Christian peoples; but Germany stepped gladly 
into England’s old place as champion of the Turk. This change 
appeared plainly during the horrible “Armenian Massacres” of 
1894-1895. To check a probable move for Armenian inde¬ 
pendence, the Turkish government turned loose upon that 
unhappy province — for the first of several times to come — 


Germany in 
Australasia 
and in Asia 
Minor 


Germany 

seeks 

Turkish 

friendship 


522 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


hordes of savage soldiery to carry out a policy of frightfulness 
by licensed murder, pillage, and ravishment of a peaceful popu¬ 
lation. At least ten thousand Armenians were murdered. In 
England in 1895 monster mass meetings called upon the Eng¬ 
lish government to intervene by arms. But Russia, fearful 
est fter Armenians might be encouraged to rebel, supported 
iurkey; France, just then hostile to England in colonial mat¬ 
ters and bound to Russia as an ally, took the same side; and 
the German Emperor sent his photograph and that of his wife 
to the Assassm-m-chief of Turkey, to show his friendly adhesion. 

7 he English government felt powerless. From his retirement 
(p. 464) the aged Gladstone once more lifted his voice, urging 
that even under these hopeless conditions, England should 
alone challenge the world and take up the work of mercy; 
and the Tory prime minister, Lord Salisbury, confessed regret- ' 
fully that in 1878 and 1854 “we put our money on the wrong 
horse. But he saw no chance to act. Two years later, how¬ 
ever when Turkey, backed by Germany, began similar outrages 
in the island of Crete, England succeeded in bringing Russia 

and I ranee into a movement to compel Turkey to cede Crete 
to Greece. 


Germany 
in China 


In 1897 another field for German colonization opened, even 
more attractive. Two missionaries of German birth were 
murdered m China, and the Kaiser made that event an excuse 
to seize a valuable Chinese port, Kiau Chau, with a large 
adjacent territory. From this center, Germany acquired a 
sphere of influence m Shantung in which German capitalists 
developed mines and built railroads, as Russians were doing 
to the north, and Englishmen and Frenchmen to the south" 
Germany was rapidly converting a rich section of China into a 
German dependency; and a satirical German Socialist news¬ 
paper in a cartoon represented the Kaiser saying, —“If only 
my missionaries hold out, I may become master of all Asia ” 
But as a colonizing nation, Germany did not prove a success. 
Capitalists went in small numbers to Asia Minor and to China 


THE KAISER’S NAVY 


523 


but they did not go to Africa; and the mass of emigrants still 
sailed to America, giving up German citizenship. German colo¬ 
nies contained a population of some 14 million people in 1911, 
but only 20,000 of these were whites. The government was 
believed anxious to obtain possessions in South or Central 
America, where German emigrants might make their homes; 
and but for the Monroe Doctrine of the United States, some 
attempts in these lines would probably have been made. This 
was one reason for the deep hostility felt by the German govern¬ 
ment for the United States in the years just before the World 
War. 

However, the matter of non-European homes for German 
emigrants became really of little consequence after 1900, 
because the number of emigrants became smaller. In the 
nineties the numbers were from 200,000 to 300,000 a year. 
But from 1909 to 1914 it was only from 20,000 to 30,000. The 
vast development of industry in Germany itself, along with 
the government’s discouragement of emigration, decided in¬ 
tending emigrants to stay at home. 

And Germany proved herself absolutely unfit to rule subject 
races in the tropics. In South Africa she turned the natives 
virtually into slaves to secure the ivory and rubber of the in¬ 
terior ; and in 1907-1909, when the cruelly oppressed peoples 
rose in revolt, she put down the risings with medieval cruelty, 
practically exterminating the Herreros, one of the most promis¬ 
ing of African races. 

In one particular Kaiser William took up a policy wholly 
unlike Bismarck’s. He determined to make Germany a great 
naval power, as well as a great military power. He constructed 
the Kiel Canal, so that the navy might have perfect protection, 

V" # 

and so that it might instantly concentrate in either the North 
Sea or the Baltic; and year by year, against violent Socialist 
resistance, he forced vast appropriations through the Reichstag 
to construct more and huger superdreadnoughts. 

The excuse given for this was the need to protect the new 
trade and the new colonies; but the real motive, absolutely 


William II 
and his 
navy 


524 


THE GERMAN EMPIRE, 1871-1918 


plain and often confessed by Germans, was to destroy England 
and weaken America at the first chance. Indeed the Kaiser 
and his advisers said openly that had their fleet been ready 
they would have attacked the United States at the time of the 
Spanish American War, and destroyed the Monroe Doctrine, 
with its check upon German plans in South America. In 
1902 Germany had a difficulty with Venezuela, and showed a 
plain intention of at least seizing a port there as a naval base. 
Theodore Roosevelt, then President, sent the American fleet, 
under Dewey, to the neighborhood, and gave Germany forty- 
eight hours in which to withdraw from Venezuela. This rather 
peremptory proceeding was successful. Germany withdrew; 

but from that time the feeling of her naval officers for America 
did not grow more friendly. 

I or Further Reading. Dawson’s Bismarck and, State Socialism 
and Russell’s German Social Democracy are good treatments of their 
subjects. Davis’ Roots of the War is especially good upon this old Ger¬ 
many, pp. 24-38, 162-248. 

Review Exercise. - Make a “brief,” or outline, for the history of 
Germany from the French Revolution to the World War. Do the like 
for France and for England. 


CHAPTER XXXVIII 


ITALY SINCE 1870 


The constitution of Italy is essentially that given to Sar¬ 
dinia in 1848. It provides for a limited monarchy of a liberal 
kind. By custom, ‘as in France and England, the ministries 
are “responsible.” That is, they resign when they no longer 
have a parliamentary majority. Local government and the 
courts are patterned upon the French model. 

Until 1882, a high property qualification was required for 
voters, — so that only one grown man in seven had the fran¬ 
chise. At that date, after two years’ agitation, the franchise 
was given to all who could read and write, or who paid certain 
rents, or four dollars in direct taxes. This still shut out more 
than half the adult males. With the progress of education, 
however, the proportion of voters slowly increased; and in 
1913 a new law established virtual manhood suffrage. 

In 1861 Italy had no schools except those taught by reli¬ 
gious orders. In the next twenty years a fair system of public 
education was built up. Primary education is gratuitous, 
compulsory, and regulated by the state, but attendance is not 
well enforced. In 1861 seventy-four per cent of the population 
over six years of age could not read or write. In 1881 this per¬ 
centage of illiterates had fallen to sixty-two, and in 1901 to 
fifty-six. The higher educational institutions are excellent, 
and Italian scholars hold a foremost place in science and 
history. 

The kingdom of Italy at its birth was far behind the other 
great states of Europe. Its proper tasks were to provide for 
public education, to repress brigandage, to build railroads, to 
foster useful industries, to drain malarial swamps and reclaim 
abandoned lands. In all this, much progress has been made; 

525 


The govern 
ment 


Education 


The crush¬ 
ing army 
system 


526 


ITALY SINCE 1870 


Taxation 


Agitation 
and politics 


but the government has been hampered by its poverty and by 
its tremendous expenditures for military purposes. 

Italy was freed by force of arms, in 1859-1861. The new¬ 
born state, for many years more, feared that the work might 
be undone by France or Austria; and to the present time 
(1919) she has maintained the usual European military system, 
with longer terms of active service than were required in Ger¬ 
many or France, though she has been much less able to endure 
this burden than were those richer countries. 


Taxation is crushing; and yet, much of the time, the govern¬ 
ment can hardly meet expenses. For many years before the 
World War, a fourth of the revenue went to pay the interest 
on the national debt, and a large part of the rest was for military 
purposes, leaving only a small part for the usual and helpful 
purposes of government. To make ends meet, the government 
has been driven to desperate expedients. Salt and tobacco 
are government monopolies; the state runs a lottery; and 
taxation upon houses, land, and incomes is so exorbitant as 
seriously to hamper industry. Thus, canning fruit should 
be a highly profitable employment; but the government tax 
on sugar makes that industry impossible. The financial and 
military problem is the great question before Italy 
Economic distress led to political and socialistic agitation. 
1C government at first met this by stern repressive legislation, 
socialists and Republicans were imprisoned by hundreds, often 
on the charge of being anarchists ; and for years at a time large 
parts of Ita y were in “state of siege,” or under martial law. 

ie Radicals and Socialists, however, gained slowlv in the 
parliament; and after 1900 violent repression was given up. 

hen at once it appeared, as in France, that the Socialists were 
a true political party; and of late years they have been strong 
even in the ministries. 

A large emigration leaves Italy each year, mainly for Brazil 
and the Argentine Republic. Partly in hope to retain these 
emigrants as Italian citizens, the government took up a policy 
of securing colonies. Indeed the new-born kingdom of Italy 


IMPERIALISM ” 


527 


(C 


almost at once began to dream of renewing ancient Italian con¬ 
trol in the Mediterranean. Just across from Sicily lay Tunis, 
one of the rich but anarchic provinces of the decaying Turkish 
Empire. To be ready to seize this plum when ripe, Italy began 
to build a navy, and, at crushing cost, she finally made hers 
among the most powerful in the world. But before she was 
quite ready to act, France seized control in Tunis (1881). Bit¬ 
terly chagrined, 1 Italy then used her military and naval force 
to secure valuable territory on the coast of Abyssinia (1885). 
From 1889 to 1896, indeed, she held a protectorate over all 
Abyssinia. In the latter year an Italian army was destroyed 
in the interior, and Italian control was reduced to the coast 
district. But in 1912-1913 this loss was much more than made 
good by the seizure of Tripoli from Turkey. 

Another difficulty about territory long troubled Italy. When 
Austria gave back “Venetia” to Italy in 1867, it was not by 
any means the ancient Venetia in extent. Old Venetia had 
reached down the east coast of the Adriatic, through Dalmatia; 
and the modern seaport, Trieste, was still largely Italian in 
blood — though the country district about it was mainly Slav. 
Italy wanted the Dalmatian coast, with complete control of 
both sides of the Adriatic. 

In this matter, right and wrong were intermingled, and an 
absolutely just solution of the problem would not have been 
easy, even if all parties had wanted one. But another part of 
the same trouble was simpler as to right and wrong. “Lom¬ 
bardy,” redeemed in 1859, certainly should have included the 
Trentine district on the south slope of the Alps, with its purely 
Italian population. This district Austria held unjustly — 
through the favor of Napoleon III; and this “Italia Irredenta” 
(“Unredeemed”), along with the unredeemed Trieste, was a 
constant source of danger to European peace. 

Italy has also a serious problem in the relations of state and 
church. Almost all Italians are Roman Catholics; but the 

1 Note on the map how Italian control of Tunis would have made the 
Mediterranean two lakes ruled by Italy, and see p. 503. 


Army, navy, 
and the 
colonial 
empire 


Italia 

Irredenta 


State and 
church 


528 


ITALY SINCE 1870 


government and the pope have been hostile to each other ever 
since the Kingdom of Italy was established. The clergy, of 
course, in the main adhere to the pope, while the great mass 
of the people earnestly support the government. 


In 1870, when Italy took forceful possession of Rome, Pope 
Pius IX protested against the act as a deed of brigandage — 
though the citizens of Rome had ratified the union with Italy 
by a vote of ninety to one. The government has left the papacy 
every power it thinks consistent with the territorial unity of 
Italy. The pope is not an Italian subject, but, in all matters 
of form, is an independent sovereign, though his territory has 
been reduced to a single palace (the Vatican) and some small 
estates. Within this domain he keeps his own court, main¬ 
tains his own diplomatic service, and carries on the machinery 
of a state. A generous annual income is also set aside for him 
by the government of Italy. The clergy and church through¬ 
out Italy are left by the government to manage their own 
affairs as completely as. in the United States, except that 

the state pays the salaries, in compensation for the church 
lands it has seized. 

In common with many zealous Catholics, however, Pope 
Pius IX felt that to exercise his proper influence as head of 
the church, he must be also an independent temporal prince. 

e refused to recognize the Italian state or to have anything 
to do with it, never left his palace grounds, and styled him¬ 
self the “prisoner of the Vatican.” His successors (1919) 
have followed this policy. For some time, no doubt, it was 
possible that in case of a general European war, Austria might 
restore the papacy as a temporal principality. The hope of 
some such result may have been back of the pope’s failure to 

w^i i °w agamSt the Cr ’ meS ° f German Y Austria in the 
World War Certainly the position of the papacy was not 

s lengthened by its attitude in that struggle. Nor did the 
Italian priesthood show a patriotism in any way like that of 
the persecuted French priests. 


CHAPTER XXXIX 


THE SMALL STATES OF CENTRAL EUROPE 

This long chapter is necessary for the understanding of Europe to-day. 
But it is suggested by the author that the class read it and talk it over with 
the teacher , without being held strictly responsible for its contents. Then, 
when necessary, the student can turn to it for reference. 

I. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, TO 1914 

Down to the World War, Austria remained “a tangle of races 
and a Babel of tongues.” The peoples spoke eleven distinct 
languages, besides numerous dialects. A fourth of them were 
German (11 millions); a fifth Magyar, or Hungarian (9 mil¬ 
lions) ; the rest were Italians, Jews, Illyrians, or Slavs. These 
Slavs made half the population, but they were broken up into 
many sub-races (p. 393 and map). 

We have seen how the counter-revolution of 1849 restored 
absolute despotism to the central government, and crushed out 
all self-government in Bohemia and Hungary. In these non- 
German districts, for years, only the German language was 
allowed in the schools, the press, or the courts. For a Bohe¬ 
mian to publish a paper in his native language was a crime. 

Naturally Bohemia and Hungary hailed with delight the 
defeat of Austria in 1859 by France and Italy. The Emperor 
Francis Joseph felt compelled to introduce liberal reforms, and 
so Austria was given a parliament. But the subject peoples 
remained unsatisfied; and after the next overthrow of Austria 
(by Prussia, in 1866) it was plain that something had to be done. 
The German element was not strong enough to rule alone. 
Accordingly the strongest two elements in the Empire joined 
hands to help each other keep control over all the other ele- 

529 


A “ tangle 
of races ” 


German 
supremacy 
to i866 


Austria wins 
a parliament 
in 1859 


530 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY TO 1918 


The “ dual 
monarchy,” 
1867-1918 


Aspirations 
of subject- 
peoples 


Some 

progress 

before 

1914 


ments. The Emperor and the Hungarian leaders arranged a 
selfish bargain which remained the constitution of Austria- 
Hungary down to 1918. 

Austria-Hungary became a dual monarchy, a federation of 
two states. Each half of the Empire had its own constitution 
and its own parliament. The two halves had the same monarch 
and a curious kind of a common legislature. These arrange¬ 
ments of 1867 sacrificed the Slavs. The Germans remained 
dominant in the Austrian half of the Empire, and the Magyars in 
the Hungarian half. The union of the two was not due to any 
internal ties between them, but wholly to selfish fears. With¬ 
out Hungarian troops the Austrian Germans and their Emperor 
could not any longer hold Bohemia in subjection; and with¬ 
out Austria to support her, Hungary would lose her border 
Slav districts and perhaps be herself absorbed in Slav Europe. 

But of course such a union was one of unstable equilibrium. 
Bohemia ceased not to demand, if not independence, at least 
that she be admitted into the imperial federation as an equal 
third state. The Poles of Austria and of Hungary hoped for 
a revival of an independent Poland. The Italians longed to 
be annexed to Italy. The Roumanians of eastern Hungary 
wished to be joined to free Roumania. The Croats and Slovaks 
desired independence or union with Serbia. With the progress 
of humanity and education, toward the twentieth centurv it 
jecame less possible for the two dominant races to use the 
o d cruel methods to keep down the subject peoples. For 
many years, historians had ventured to prophesy that a general 

uropean war, if one came, would probably end this ill-sorted 
conglomerate state. 

In domestic matters, before the World War, the Austrian 
part of the empire had taken two great steps forward m 
" 18GS-1869 the German Liber.,, i„ th , ,,«„,2 

laws for complete religious liberty for all men. These laws 

scLTs Th" 1 C , ^ ° ld COntr °‘ ° Ver marria S e and the 
schools. The population is almost wholly Catholic; but it 

has supported this anti-clerical legislation, against even the 


IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 531 

severe condemnation of the pope. (2) In 1906, after many 
years of agitation, full and equal manhood suffrage was secured 
for local elections and for the lower House of the national parlia¬ 
ment. 

The parliament, however, contained twenty-eight distinct 
parties, largely on a basis of race jealousies. The election of 
1913 made the Christian Socialists far the largest of any one 
party, giving them 96 members out of a total of 516. But the 
war, following almost at once, showed the parliament to be 
absolutely powerless for all purposes of real government. 
It was not in anyway consulted when the Emperor and his ad¬ 
visors brought on the war; and it was at once dissolved, and 
no new parliament allowed to meet for more than a year. 

II. SPAIN 

Before 1800 the ideas of the French Revolutionists began 
to filter into Spain, but their welcome was confined to the small 
educated class. Napoleon’s attack broke down the old mon¬ 
archy and gave these Liberals a chance. They took the lead 
in the War for Independence (1809-1813); and, in the midst 
of that struggle, the Cortes drew up the famous Constitution 
of 1812 (p. 340). 

Then followed the restoration of the cruel and suspicious 
Ferdinand VII, his treacherous overthrow of the constitution, 
its restoration by the revolution of 1820, and the armed inter¬ 
vention of the despotic Holy Alliance in 1823 (pp. 340, 343). 
For the next ten years the Liberals were persecuted vigorously. 
To own a foreign book was a crime. In 1831 a young man was 
hanged in Madrid for shouting “Hurrah for Liberty!” and a 
woman met the same fate for embroidering on a flag the words, 
“Law, Liberty, Equality.” 

Ferdinand died in 1833; but, for forty years more, Spain 
passed from revolution to revolution, — none for liberty, each 
for some ruler or military chieftain. During the middle half 
of the century Spain had many “paper constitutions but no 
constitutionalism. The government was “government by 


Constitu¬ 
tion of 1812 


Despotism 
from 1815 
to 1833 


“ Govern¬ 
ment by 
revolution,” 

1833-1873 


SPAIN IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 


A republic, 
1873-1874 


revolt.” Every change was brought about by a coup d’etat. 
The many successive military revolutions, however, were marked 
by surprisingly little bloodshed. It has been wittily said that 
during this period “revolution in Spain became a fine art.” 
When an administration had grown sufficiently unpopular, 
some officer with docile battalions and a grievance would issue 
a “pronunciamento” declaring the existing government dis¬ 
solved and naming the members of a new one. If the adventurer 
had counted his strength advisedly, the old government would 
vanish; if it stayed, the revolt usually disappeared. It was 
part of the political game to know, without fighting, when one 
was beaten. Some one has said that Spaniards developed a 
e mate tact in working revolutions, as English-speaking people 

wmrk elections, with the least possible disturbance to the affairs 
ot everyday life. 

T° „ be SUre ’ after each of the meaningless commotions of 
iese forty years, the victorious faction would “appeal to the 
nation for sanction. But it used all the machinery of the 
government including the police, to carry its candidates; and 
members ot an opposing party, if active, were liable to be 
mobbed by the government party (the “party of the club”), 

01 A/r 1 e -" reslsted ’ t0 be 'ocked up “to prevent a disturbance.” 

Meantime wasteful taxation and miserable misgovernment 
made the nation seethe with discontent; and in 1868 a Liberal 
uprising expelled the ruling Bourbon line, and set up a Pro¬ 
visional Government. For the next few years, this govern¬ 
ment begged prince after prince in Europe to accept the Span- 
ish crown (cf. p. 420). 

These efforts failing, in 1873 the Liberals set up a republic, 
with Castelar as president. The constitution, said to have been 
rawn up in twenty-four hours, was never more than a form, 
e leaders made absurd promises which could not be kept • to 
reduce taxes, though the treasury was bankrupt; to do away 
h conscription, though the army was demoralized and revolt 

rampant * 1 J t0 ab ° hSh CapUal punishment ’ thou S h crime was 


SPAIN TO-DAY 


533 


But Castelar could learn ; and six months of anarchy changed 
his views. Bourbon risings were making rapid progress in 
the northern provinces; the seaboard cities of the south had 
declared themselves independent communes, after the plan of 
Paris two years before; taxes ceased to come in; the remnants 
of the army were in mutiny; the towns were at the mercy of 
ruffians, and the country districts in the hands of bandits. 
Then, in a fortunate recess of the Cortes, Castelar turned his 
vague legal authority into a beneficent dictatorship. The 
choice, he saw, lay between bayonet rule in the hands of dis¬ 
ciplined troops controlled by good men, and pike rule in the 
hands of a vicious rabble led by escaped galley slaves. He 
candidly abandoned his old theories, broke his foolish pledges, 
and with wise energy brought order out of chaos. He crushed 
the communes with an army recruited by a strict conscrip¬ 
tion, and checked crime and anarchy by military executions 
after swift drumhead courtmartials. 

It was natural that he should be assailed as a tyrant. When 
the Cortes reassembled, his old friends passed a vote of lack of 
confidence. The commander of the troops asked for permis¬ 
sion to disperse the Cortes; but, by resigning promptly, Caste¬ 
lar showed that he had no wish to prolong his personal authority. 
To-day no one doubts his good faith or good judgment, and 
the name of this republican statesman-author-dictator stands 
out as the chief glory of Spain in the nineteenth century. 1 

Castelar’s resignation was followed by brief anarchy; but 
two more revolutions brought the nation to the restoration of 
the old Bourbon line, at the close of 1874, in the person of the 
young Alphonso XII. The new government proved vigorous 
and prudent; and in 1876 the present constitution introduced 
Spain to a somewhat more hopeful period. 

The government in theory rests mainly in the Cortes. This 
body consists of a Senate and a Congress. Half the senators 




Constitu¬ 

tional 

monarchy, 

1876 


The govern 
ment 


1 Castelar had been professor of philosophy in the University of Madrid 
before he entered politics, and he ranks among the great orators of modern 
times. Hannay’s Castelar is a brief and interesting biography. 


534 


SPAIN TO-DAY 


Ten years 
of reform, 
1881-1890 


are elected, while the rest are appointed for life. The congress¬ 
men are elected by manhood suffrage (since 1890). 

The ministry is expected to resign if outvoted in the Cortes, 
but, in practice, parliamentary majorities do not yet really make 
ministries. Instead, ministries make parliamentary majorities, 
as in England a century and a half ago (p. 214). A ministry 
is formed by coalition between factions, and then it supplies 
itself with a good working majority by a new election. The 
ministry controls the elections pretty thoroughly; but such 
things are managed more decorously than formerly. Since 
1876 no party has “called in the infantry.” 

Until 1881 the energies of the government went mainly to 
restoring order. Then, for ten years, reform crowded upon re- 
orm. Jury trial was introduced ; civil marriage was permitted • 
popular education was encouraged; the franchise was extended; 
the slaves in the colonies were freed; honest but vain attempts 
were made to improve the government of the colonies; and, 

above all, so far as Spain’s welfare is concerned, the system of 
taxation was reformed. 

. In 1876 taxes were stm le vied in the wasteful, demoraliz¬ 
ing way characteristic of France before the First Revolution, 
and both foreign trade and home industries were strangled by 
t em Conditions are still far from ideal, but the heaviest 
shackles have been struck off. As a result, trade has mounted 
by bounds; manufactures have developed; railroads and 
telegraphs have been tripled. Population has doubled in 
the last century, rising from ten millions to twenty, and 
the growth has been especially rapid in the last decades. 

Above. all, the number of peasant landowners is rapidlv 
increasing. J 

To be sure, the mass of the people are shiftless, excitable, 
bigoted. Still Spain is far from being a dying nation, as she 
is sometimes called. She is a reviving nation : and the increase 
m population and in wealth is a chief reason for the political 
stability of the last forty years. Under the new conditions, 
constant revolution would he too costly. 


SPAIN TO-DAY 


535 


Until 1898, the surviving colonial empire (Cuba, the Philip¬ 
pines, and so on) was a drag upon progress. After 1876 a 
series of efforts was made to give good government and some 
measure of self-control to Cuba, which had been in incessant 
and wasting rebellion. But the problem was too difficult to 
be worked out by a country so backward at home. Corrupt 
officials oftentimes ruined the designs of the government; and 
in any case, the colonies were already so alienated by long mis- 
government as to make the task hopeless. 

In 1894 Cuba rose again for independence. Spain made 
tremendous efforts to hold her, and for some years, at an im¬ 
mense cost, maintained an army of 200,000 men at a distance 
of 2000 miles from home. The warfare, however, was reducing 
Cuba to a desert; and finally, in 1898, the United States 
interfered. The Spanish-American War resulted in the sur¬ 
render of all the Spanish colonies, except a few neighboring 
islands and some districts in northwest Africa. 

It may be hoped that this loss will prove a gain. The pov¬ 
erty of the government has been serious. The interest charge 
on the huge national debt is a crushing burden, and until 1900 
the debt itself was constantly growing. Now that Spain no 
longer has the task of holding distant colonial possessions, she 
may conclude to reduce her absurd army system and to use the 
money for the development of the intellect of the people and of 
the resources of the land. She still has ambitions, however, 
to extend her colonial possessions in Africa; and she long kept 


Loss of 
Cuba 


Poverty and 
taxation 


a vague hope that, in case of a general European war, she might 
regain Gibraltar. This last consideration went far to make her 
somewhat pro-German in the World War. 

Catholicism is the state religion. Though the constitution Religion 
promises “freedom of worship/ no other religious services are e( j ucat j on 
permitted in 'public. In this respect Spain is the most backward 
of European lands. She is also sadly backward in education. 

There is a compulsory education law, but it is a paper edict. 

In 1909 a government investigation found 30,000 towns and 
villages with no public school whatever, while in 10,000 other 


536 


The Ferrer 
schools 


Establish¬ 
ment of the 
Republic 


THE REPUBLIC OF PORTUGAL 

places the schools were in hired premises — many of them 
grossly unfit for the purpose, — connected with slaughter¬ 
houses, cemeteries, or stables. The teachers were poor and 
poorly paid; and attendance was still poorer. The only 
schools in most of the country, outside these public schools, 
were nuns schools, teaching only the catechism and needle¬ 
work. Only one fourth the population could read and write. 

Spanish Liberals have wished to change all this radically, 
(1) _ by separating church and state, and (2) by excluding 
clerical control from the schools. But the introduction of man¬ 
hood suffrage in 1900 proved disastrous to such reforms. It 
strengthened the Clericals and Conservatives in the Cortes 
because of the absolute obedience paid at elections by the 
peasants to their priests, and for many years progress in edu- 
cation and in politics has almost ceased. 

About 1900 the horrible condition of the schools roused the 
wrath of a great teacher, Francesco Ferrer. This upright and 
courageous thinker founded a “modern school’’ to start a re¬ 
form in Spanish education. His experiment was arousing 
great interest; but the Clerical party, fearing his influence, 
had him murdered judicially. The hold of the priests upon the 
wor mg classes is so strong that in Spain, alone in European 
countries, Socialism appears only in a few large cities — and as a 
conspiracy rather than as a constitutional party. In 1910 there 
was a Socialist revolt in Barcelona. The Clericals charged 
that Ferrer had instigated this revolt. They had him tried in 
secret before a military tribunal, convicted him by the aid of 

forged papers, and killed him. “Ferrer schools” have been 
established in many lands. 


III. THE REPUBLIC OF PORTUGAL 

1820 f!? 1 ’ «,Tl 0f i the , reUltS ° f ^ Spanish Nation of 
. i P ’ t le klng of Portu gal accepted a constitu- 

rnn drawn up by a group of Radicals upon the model of the 

Spanish constitution of 1812. For many years, however, the 

country was distracted by revolutions, and by wars between 


BELGIUM 


537 


claimants for the crown; but about the middle of the nineteenth 
century, Portugal began to make some progress in constitu¬ 
tional government. Then, in 1910, a sudden uprising set up 
a republic, which so far (1919) seems stable. English influ¬ 
ence controls foreign relations, so that Portugal is, in practice, 
almost an English protectorate. 

Until 1910 Catholicism was the state religion. Indeed there 
were only a few hundred people of other faiths in the country. 
But the Republican government at once established complete 
religious freedom, confiscated the church property, and adopted 
a plan for the “separation of church and state” like that set up 
in France in 1906. Education, by law, is universal and gratui¬ 
tous ; but in practice the children of the poor do not attend school. 
The schools, too, are very poor. Portugal is more illiterate 
even than Spain. The chief peril to the Republic is ignorance. 

Colonies are still extensive (in the Verde islands, in Africa, 
and in India), but they do not pay expenses, and it is doubtful 
whether so poor a country can afford to keep them. Their 
administration, too, is very bad. 

National finances are in a deplorable condition. In 1893 
Portugal suspended payment of two thirds of the interest on 
her national debt. In 1894 France withdrew her ambassador, 
because of dissatisfaction at this treatment of French creditors. 
Such action gave rise to talk of possible intervention by Euro¬ 
pean governments in Portuguese affairs. For some years 
the government has had an annual deficit. It would seem 
that the country must give up her costly army system and 
sell her colonies. One reason for maintaining her army has 
been fear of Spain. 

Recent years have seen much distress from lack of employ¬ 
ment or low wages, and many strikes accompanied by riots. 

IV. BELGIUM 

The Constitution of Belgium is still that of 1831, with a 
few amendments. It has an admirable bill of rights. The 
king acts only through “responsible” ministers. 


Religion 

and 

education 


Present 

problems 


538 


BELGIUM 


A demo¬ 
cratic 
franchise 


The church 
and 

education 


In 1831 the franchise rested upon the payment of a consid¬ 
erable tax. When the revolutions of 1848 were upsetting so 
many governments, Belgium made a slight reduction in this 
qualification for voting. For nearly fifty years there was no 
further change; but meanwhile great city populations were 
growing up, with masses of artisans who had no votes. In 
the eighties only one man in ten could vote ; and agitation began 
for further extension of the franchise. 

The proposal secured little support in parliament, however, 
and bill after bill was voted down. In the early nineties the 
discontent of the Radicals became violent. In 1893 the Labor 
party declared a general strike, in order to exert political pres¬ 
sure, and the crowds of unemployed men in Brussels about the 
parliament house threatened serious riots. The militia was 
called out, but it showed a dangerous disposition to side with 
the rioters. 

The members of parliament, looking on from their windows, 
changed their minds, and quickly passed a new franchise 
law, providing for manhood suffrage, with plural votes for wealth 
and education. Each man was given one vote; tivo votes were 
given to each man over thirty-five years of age, if he possessed 
certain wealth, or if he were the head of a family with children; 
and three votes were given to men of high educational qualifica¬ 
tion and to those who had held important public office. 

The new franchise produced unexpected results. From 1850 
to 1884 the leading question in politics had been whether state 
or church should control education. The Liberals were in 
power the greater part of the time, and, by one bill after another, 
they had taken the schools wholly away from clerical influence. 

This resulted, however, in the growth of a large Clerical 
party. Then, the election of 1894 returned 104 Clericals, 
15 Liberals, and 33 Socialists. Of the two million votes cast, 
over a thud were plural votes,” and these very largely reinforced 
the Clericals. A new education bill (1895) placed the public 
schools under the supervision of the church, and provided state 
support for church schools. Education continued to make 


HOLLAND 


539 


progress. In 1890, 16 per cent of the army recruits could not 
read or write; in 1910 the number was only 9 per cent. The 
Clerical party in Belgium is enlightened and progressive. 

Belgium has ranked for many years among the leading in¬ 
dustrial nations. In 1910 the population was seven and a 
half million — more than double that in 1815. The people 
were happy, contented, and prosperous. Then for more than 
four years (1914-1918) this little land was made the battle 
ground of the terrible World War; and its splendid heroism 
and unparalleled sufferings have excited the admiration and the 
sympathy of the civilized world (cf. pp. 614 ff.). At this writing 
(1919) the only political change due to the war is the recent 
introduction of simple manhood suffrage with the abolition of 
all plural votes. This promises a new era of democratic reform. 

V. HOLLAND 

The royal family of Holland belongs to the great House of 
Orange, and the people are loyally devoted to it. The present 
sovereign is Queen Wilhelmina, who came to the throne in 1890 
at ten years of age. The upper House of the States General 
(the parliament keeps that ancient name) is chosen by the local 
legislatures of the various provinces for nine years, one third 
going out each third year. This plan of partial renewals of a 
branch of the legislature has been adopted in many countries, 
as in the Senate of the United States, but it seems to have orig¬ 
inated in Holland some centuries ago. 

The House of Representatives (lower House of the States 
General) is elected directly by the people. Since 1896 about 
three fourths of the adult men have votes, — nearly all except 
paupers, vagabonds, and unmarried sons in poor families. 
The monarchy has been of the Prussian rather than the English 
type, until recently; but during the long minority of the girl- 
queen the ministries began to be truly “responsible ” to the Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

The country is rich and prosperous. The population (six 
millions in 1910) has grown in the last century even faster 


Government 


Wealth and 
prosperity 


540 


DENMARK 


To the 
Constitution 
of 1866 


Government 


Cooperation 
and the 
high schools 


tha ° that of Bel S ium - The colonial empire, despite great losses 
in the Napoleonic wars, is still vast and productive. 

VI. DENMARK 

In the later Middle Ages, Denmark was an elective monarchy 
distracted by feudal anarchy. In 1660, after a shameful 
defeat by Sweden, it became an hereditary and absolute mon¬ 
archy. In 1848 the king felt obliged to grant a paper constitu¬ 
tion, but not until after the defeat 1 of 1864 did Denmark 
begin to have real constitutional development. A Demo¬ 
cratic party (“Friends of the Peasants”) then began to demand 

estaWished.^' ^ ^ ° f a ~ 

This constitution of 1866 promises freedom of speech and 
o the press, and creates a Diet (Rigsdag) of two Houses. The 

a “ • H ° USe ’ ‘ S com P° sed P art *y of members 

appointed by the king, partly of members elected on a very high 

ZTT baS ‘ S ' The Folkthin §’ or kwer House, is elected. In 
1901 the vote was given to all self-supporting men, thirty vears 

£ a ?q’ and !" 1915 was extended to all men and most women. 

1901 after a thirty years’ contest, ministries were made 
responsible to the Representatives. 

Denmark is the special home of cooperation among farmers 

dd e n f ,S t r t natUrall f fertile ' The 3e °P le ’ until the 

middle of the nineteenth century, were poor and ignorant 

t SfEtT S Ward - Tlle defeat by ^Austria ' 

1864 left the little state disrupted and impoverished Its 

people were forced to seek some escape from their condition ' 

tains "Tom's '" 1 SC . h ° 0lS - P ° inted the Way ’ Denmark ««- 

of peonD Thar 6 "ft W1 tW ° aDd three quarter milliona 
than half thT t has ™* P^ple than Indiana, in less 

than half the territory. More than a third of these people 

are farmers. For them, ninety-eight high schools giveln- 

struction m agriculture and domestic economy, - twenty of 

the ninety-eight being special schools in agriculture. Most of 

1 Compare with the case of Austria after 1866, and France after 1870. 


NORWAY AND SWEDEN 


541 


these schools, too, give special “short courses” in the winter, 
and these are largely attended by adult farmers and their 
wives. The schools are not merely industrial; even the short 
courses emphasize music and literature. They aim to teach 
not merely how to get a living, but also how to live nobly. 
And they have taught the Danish farmers the methods of 
successful cooperation. In 1914 Denmark was one of the most 
prosperous farming countries in the world. 

Local cooperative societies are found in almost every dis¬ 
tinct line of farm industry, — in dairying, in the hog industry, 
in marketing of eggs, in breeding cattle, in producing improved 
seed, in securing farm machinery, in loaning one another money 
(farm credits), and so on. The local societies are federated 
into national organizations. The central society that markets 
eggs and dairy products has an office in London as well as in 
Copenhagen, and owns its own swift steamers to ply daily 
between the two capitals. 

Thanks to intelligent methods of farming, and of handling 
produce, these Danish articles command the top price in the 
London market; and, thanks to the cooperative system, the 
profits go to the producers, not to middlemen. Best of all, 
the Danish peasant, on eight or ten acres of land, is an educated 
man, cultured because of his intelligent, scientific mastery of 
his work. In 1891 an enlightened Old-Age pension system was 
adopted. 

The statements regarding Danish prosperity, however, call 
now (1923) for sorrowful modification. The World War ruined 
the two chief markets for Danish produce — the English and 
the German. Consequently this neutral land, industrious, intel¬ 
ligent, and frugal, has for several years, without fault of its 
own, been suffering dire economic distress, — which is one more 
striking evidence that the world at large cannot afford war. 

VII. NORWAY AND SWEDEN 

The Congress of Vienna, in 1814, took Norway from Den¬ 
mark and gave it to Sweden (p. 330), to reward that country 


542 


NORWAY AND SWEDEN 


The 

“ union ” of 
1814 


for services against Napoleon. But the Norwegian people 
declined to be bartered from one ruler to another without 
their own consent. A Diet assembled at Eidvold, declared 
Norway a sovereign state, adopted a liberal constitution, and 
elected a king ( May 17,1814). Sweden, backed by the Powers, 
made ready to enforce its claims, but finally a compromise was 



Norway’s 
struggle for 
self-govern¬ 
ment 


arranged. The king abdicated, and the Diet elected the Swed¬ 
ish king as king of Norway, on condition that he should recognize 
the new Norwegian constitution. 

Thus Norway and Sweden became a dual monarchy. The 
union was looser, however, than that of Austria-Hungary The 
two countries had the same king, but they had no common 
ministry and nothing to correspond to the Austrian-Hungarian 

■mpenal parliament. Each kingdom kept its own constitution 
and its own legislature. 

The arrangement lasted almost a century. But there was a 
growing chasm between the two lands. Sweden had a strong 
aristocracy and a considerable city population. Norway even 
en had only a weak aristocracy, and was a land of independ- 




NORWAY AND SWEDEN 


543 


ent peasants and sturdy fisherfolk. The national legislature storthing 
(Storthing) assembles as one house, but divides itself for most *g t oeg yal 
purposes into two chambers. The king of the dual state could 
not dissolve it, and, according to the constitution, a bill became 
law in spite of his veto, if passed in three successive annual 
sessions. In the early part of the century the Storthing suc¬ 
ceeded in abolishing nobility in Norway, after two vetoes by the 
king, and in 1884 it established manhood suffrage against his 
will. 

The chief interest in Norwegian politics in the nineteenth 
century lay in the agitation for a greater amount of self-govern¬ 
ment. Except for one period of about thirty years in the 
middle of the century, the contest was incessant, and after 
1872 it grew bitter. 

In 1872-1874 the Storthing passed a bill three times, re¬ 
quiring the ministries to resign if outvoted. King Oscar II 
declared truly that this was an amendment to the constitution, 
and therefore a change in the compact between the two coun¬ 
tries. In such a case, he urged, the rule limiting his veto 
could not apply, and he declined to recognize the law. The 
Storthing impeached the ministers. Civil war seemed at hand; 
but a new election in 1884 showed that the Norwegians were 
almost unanimous in the demand, and the king yielded. 

Oscar II came to the Swedish throne in 1872, just before 
the Norwegian national movement became violent; and 
his moderation and fairness had much to do with prevent¬ 
ing an armed conflict, which impetuous men on either side 
were ready to precipitate. He was one of the greatest men 
who sat upon European thrones in the last century. For¬ 
eign nations paid a deserved tribute to his ability and 
fairness, by requesting him frequently to act as arbitrator 
in international disputes. The United States was inter¬ 
ested in some of these arbitrations. 

After this victory of 1884, the real executive, for all internal 
affairs in Norway, became Norwegian, not Swede. The Stor- 


544 


NORWAY AND SWEDEN 


thing passed at once to a demand for power to appoint Norwegian 

consuls, separate from the Swedish service. This demand also 

seemed to the king to involve a change in the constitution, — 

which put the regulation of foreign affairs into his hands, — and 

the Swedish party exclaimed that the proposed arrangement 

would ruin the slight union that remained between the two 
countries. 


Norwegian 

independ¬ 

ence 


Norway 
leads in 
Woman 
suffrage 


The struggle waxed vehement. In the course of the con¬ 
test the Norwegians removed the symbol of union from their 
flag (1886-1888), after passing the bill to that effect each year 
or three sessions, and both countries at times made prepara¬ 
tions for war. Indeed, Norway erected a costly line of forti- 
ncations on the frontier toward Sweden. 

In May, 1905, when once more a long negotiation for separate 
consular service had failed, the Storthing, by unanimous vote, 
provided by its own act for Norwegian consuls. This was vir- 
tua secession, and the king refused to .recognize it. The 
Storthing then declared the union dissolved. The aristocratic 
element in Sweden called for war; but King Oscar was nobly 
resolute that his two peoples should not imbrue their hands in 
each others blood. The Swedish labor-unions, too, threatened 
a universal strike to prevent violent coercion of their Norwegian 
brethren. In July the Norwegians declared in favor of inde- 

f e “ e ' n a , Sr t at nationaI referendum, by a vote of 368,000 
to 184. Sweden bowed to the decision. In September, 1905, to 

he eternal honor of both peoples, a peaceful separation was ar- 
ranged upon friendly terms. 

Thus Norway became an independent nation. A small party 
wis ed the new nation to become a republic; but, in a second 
referendum, a large majority declared for a monarchy and 
chose a Danish prince (Haakon VII) f or king. 

In 1901 the Storthing gave the franchise in all municipal 
matters to women who paid (or whose husbands paid) a small 
tax. In 1907 the parliamentary franchise was given to the 
same class of women. Thus, Norway was the first sovereign 
nation to give the full franchise to women. Women, too] 


NORWAY AND SWEDEN 


545 


sit in the Storthing. There is a strong demand for the exten¬ 
sion of the franchise to all women on the same terms as men, — 
a demand certain to be granted in the near future. 

Norway has two and a half millions of people; Sweden, more 
than twice as many. Sweden is also the richer country. The 
Norwegians, however, have the larger merchant navy, — more 
than four times as large as Sweden’s, and the fourth in size in 
all Europe. This was one reason why, during the “ Union,” 
Norway felt it had a special interest in controlling the consular 
service. Norwegian authors, like the novelist-statesman Bjorn- 
son and the poet Ibsen, stand in the front ranks of European 
literature, and such facts, no doubt, helped to make Norwegians 
discontented with their recent political inferiority. 

Until late in the nineteenth century Sweden was backward 
in politics. The diet was made up, medieval fashion, of four 
estates — nobles, clergy, burgesses, and peasants — and the 
king could always play off one class against another. In 1866 
this arrangement was replaced by a modern parliament of two 
Houses, but for nearly half a century more the franchise ex¬ 
cluded a large part of the adult males. Agitation for reform 
began vehemently in 1895. Seventeen years later, the right to 
vote for members of the lower House of the parliament was 
given to all adult men, but with many “plural” votes for wealth. 
At the same time women secured the franchise for all matters 
of local government. Then in 1919, with the surging rise of 
Democracy throughout the world, sweeping reforms abolished 
plural voting and established simple universal suffrage for 
men and women in both national and local affairs. 


Swedish 
reform 
since 1866 


CHAPTER XL 

THE SWISS REPUBLIC 


Condition 
in 1830 


The Sonder- 
bund War 


The Congress of Vienna left the Swiss cantons in a loose con- 

7 Qn aC ^, P ' 332) ’ " 0t UnHke that of the United States before 
1789. The original “Forest Cantons” were pure democracies. 

1 hey governed themselves (as some do still) by folkmoots — 
primary assemblies of all the people. In Bern, Luzern, and 
some other of the rich “City Cantons,” a few families had com¬ 
pete possession of the government, so that the rule was an 
hereditary oligarchy. But in 1830, after the success of the 

Pencil revolution, popular risings established liberal local con- 
stitutions there also. 

The next change grew out of religious strife. The reor¬ 
ganized cantons of 1830 were Protestant, and had become pro¬ 
gressive in politics. The old democratic cantons were Catholic 
and were coming to be controlled by a new Clerical party.’ 
Ihe confederacy seemed ready to split in twain. 

1 f Ug8le began in Aar S au - In this canton, in the 

revolt 0 " T ’• T f rogressives w °n. The Clericals rose in 
O punish them, after suppressing the rising, the 

gressives dissolved the eight monasteries of the canton. This 
ac was contrary to the constitution of the Union; and the 
seven Catholic cantons in alarm formed a separate league, 
the Sonderbund, - and declared that they would protect 
the Clericals in their rights in any canton. T 

thJ h 8 a' et ’ nOW controlled by the Progressives, ordered 

tie Sonderbund to dissolve. The Sonderbund withdrew its 

SguTasir ° iet ’ and “ The S ° nderbund War” was 
Oegun (184 ) - seven cantons against fifteen. The despotic 

ha7of S the S d h y WCTe Paring to interfere in be- 

but thf TTn° e r ’ and did furnish !t With arms a " d money , 
momsts (warned and encouraged by the English 

546 


THE GOVERNMENT 


547 


government) acted with remarkable celerity and crushed the 
Secessionists in a three weeks’ campaign. Metternich still 
intended to interfere, but the revolutions of 1848 rendered 
him harmless. Then the Progressives remodeled the constitu¬ 
tions of the conquered cantons, so as to put power into the hands 
of the Progressives there, and adopted a new national constitu¬ 
tion. 


There are many interesting points of likeness between the 
civil war in Switzerland and that a little later in the United 
States. In both countries there was a conflict between 
a national and a states’ sovereignty party. In both, as a 
result of war, the more progressive part of the nation forced 
a stronger union upon the more backward portion. In both, 
too, the states which tried to secede did so in behalf of rights 
guaranteed them in the old constitution, which they be¬ 
lieved to be endangered by their opponents. 

t 

By the new constitution of 1848, which with slight amend¬ 
ments is that of to-day, the union became a true Federal Republic. 

The Federal Assembly (national legislature) has two Houses, 
— the Council of the States and the National Council. The first 
consists of two delegates from each canton. The delegates are 
chosen by the cantonal legislatures, by whom also their term 
of office is fixed and their salaries are paid. This Council 
represents the states' rights principle , and in form it is a survival 
of the old Diet. 

The other parts of the constitution, however, are new, and 
tend toward nationalism. The second House of the legislature, 
the National Council, represents the people of the union. The 
members are elected in single districts, like our Representatives, 
for a term of three years. The franchise is given to all adult 
males, and elections take place on Sundays, so that all may vote. 

The Federal Executive is not a single president, but a com¬ 
mittee of seven (the Federal Council), whose members are chosen 
by the Federal Assembly. One of the seven, especially named 


The Consti¬ 
tution 


548 


THE SWISS REPUBLIC 


Direct 

legislation 


for the purpose, is the “President of the Council”; but he 
possesses little more authority than the other members. The 
Federal Council acts much as an English ministry, but it can¬ 
not dissolve the legislature, and it need not resign if its measures 
are rejected. 

There is also a Federal Judiciary , chosen by the Federal 
Assembly; but it lacks the power of our American Supreme 



Interlaken, a typical Swiss town. 


Court to declare laws void: it is bound to accept as valid all 
acts of the legislature. 

Each canton, like each of our States, has its own constitution 
and government. In a few cantons the old folkmoot, or pri¬ 
mary Assembly, is still preserved; in the others the legislature 
consists of one chamber, chosen by manhood suffrage. In each 
there is an executive council. 

As a rule in modern democratic countries, the people govern 
themselves only indirectly. They choose representatives (legis- 









REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE 


549 


latures and governors), and these few delegated individuals 
attend directly to all matters of government. Switzerland 
was the first country to show clearly how ‘‘direct democracy” 
can work under modern conditions. The two Swiss devices for 
this end are known as the referendum and the popular initiative. 

The referendum consists merely in referring laws that have The 
been passed by the legislature to a popular vote. This practice Referendum 
originated in America. The State of Massachusetts submitted 
its first constitution to a popular vote in 1778 and in 1780. 

A little later, the French Revolutionists adopted the practice 
for their constitutions, and the plebiscites of the Napoleons 
extended the principle to some other questions besides consti¬ 
tutions. In America, after 1820, nearly all our States used the 
referendum on the adoption of new constitutions and of con¬ 
stitutional amendments ; and sometimes other important meas¬ 
ures were submitted to popular decision, both in State and 
city governments. 

But Switzerland taught the world how to go farther than 
this. By the Constitution of 1848, all constitutional amend¬ 
ments, cantonal or national, must be submitted to popular vote, 
and in some cantons this compulsory referendum is extended to 
all laws; while, by an amendment of 1874, a certain number 
of voters by petition may require the submission of any national 
law. This last provision is known as the optional referendum , 
and it has been in use in the separate cantons for most of the 
nineteenth century. 

The popular initiative is a purely Swiss development. It The 
consists in the right of a certain number of voters, by petition, Initiative 
to frame a new bill and to compel its submission to the people. 

A little before 1848, this device began to be regarded as the 
natural complement of the referendum. Four cantons had 
already made some use of it, and the new Constitution of 1848 
required all cantons to permit it on constitutional amendments, 
if a majority of voters so petitioned. 

The cantons themselves rapidly adopted more generous 
measures than this; and, by 1870, in nearly all of them a small 


550 


THE SWISS REPUBLIC 


number of voters could introduce any law they desired. In 
1891, by amendment, this liberal principle was adopted for the 
national government: a petition of fifty thousand voters may 
frame a law, which must then be submitted to a national vote. 

Thus, without the intervention of the legislature, the people 
can frame bills by the initiative, and pass on them by the referen¬ 
dum. These devices for direct legislation are the most impor¬ 
tant advances made in late years by democracy. Recently, 
many of the more progressive States of the American Union 
have carried them (with the further device of the recall) to a 
higher degree of perfection even than in their Swiss home. 


Place in 
history 


Switzerland fills a far larger place in history and in human 
intei est than hei territory fills on the map. The defeated 
party quickly accepted the result of the Sonderbund War in 
good faith, and now all Swiss look upon one another as fellow- 
countrymen. The schools are among the best in Europe: no 
other country has so little illiteracy. Comfort is well diffused. 
No other country to-day gives such complete equality of oppor¬ 
tunity in industry and in politics. The army system is a uni¬ 
versal militia service, lighter than has been known anywhere 
else in continental Europe during the last forty years. 

Two thirds of the people are German; but French and 
Italian, as well as German, are ‘ official ’ languages, and the 
debates in the Federal Assembly are carried on in all three 
tongues. The universal patriotism of the people is a high 
testimonial to the strength of free institutions, and of the flexi¬ 
ble federal principle, in binding together diverse elements. 
Says President Lowell, of Harvard, “ The Swiss Confederation, 
on the whole, is the most successful democracy in the world.” 

For Further Reading. — Seignobos’ Europe Since 1814, 255-284, 
or Hazen s Europe Since 1815. Fuller accounts, of interest and great 
value, may be found in Lloyd’s A Sovereign People and Crawford’s 
Switzerland of To-day (1911). 


CHAPTER XLI 


RUSSIA 

Russia’s destruction of Napoleon’s Grand Army, in 1813, 
revealed her tremendous power. In the fifteenth century 
(p. 237), the Russians held only a part of what is now South 
Central Russia, nowhere touching a navigable sea. For nearly 
two hundred years more, expansion came mainly by coloniza¬ 
tion — the ceaseless movement of pioneers into the savage 
wilderness north and east. 

Like swarming hives, Russian villages along the frontier 
sent forward bands of people, each band to advance a little way 
and form a new village, driving out or absorbing the Tartar 
barbarians. On the east much of the advance was made by 
another kind of frontiersmen, called Cossacks. The Cossacks 
lived partly by agriculture, partly by grazing, and often they 
waged war on their own account against Turks and Tartars, 
somewhat as our early American frontiersmen won Kentucky 
from the Indians and Texas from Mexico. As early as the time 
of Ivan the Terrible (p. 237), a Cossack horde seized part of 
Siberia, and the movement to the Pacific was completed in 
1707 by the seizure of Kamchatka. 

Expansion by organized war began in earnest with Peter the 
Great. We have seen how he and his successors won on the 
west the entire Baltic coast, with much of Poland (pp. 238-9, 
249, 329). But the Baltic offered little more as a door to the 
outer world than did the ice-blocked Archangel and Kamchatka, 
since, in time of war, its narrow straits could be closed easily 
by a hostile power. 

Peter also began a struggle for the Black Sea, and a century 
of war against the Turks (1772-1878) made Russia mistress 
of the whole north and west coast, from Azof to the Danube. 
But here, too, Turkish Constantinople still closed the exit to the 

551 


Growth of 
territory 


The 

struggle 
for ice- 
free ports 


552 


RUSSIA, TO 1914 


The Trans- 

Siberian 

Railway 


The danger 
to India 


Checked by 
Japan 


outer world, and so Russian ambition long aimed at that ancient 
capital of the Greek faith. 

In Asia, Russian advance after 1800 was steady and terrify¬ 
ing. She aimed at ice-free Pacific ports on the east, and at 
the Persian Gulf and the Indian seas on the south, besides the 
rich realms of Central Asia and India. In 1858 she reached 
the Amur, seizing northern Manchuria from China. Two years 
later she secured Vladivostock — ice free for most of the year. 
In 1895 the Trans-Siberian Railway was begun, and in 1902 
that vast undertaking was completed to Vladivostock. This 
road is more than 5000 miles long, — nearly double the length 
of the great American transcontinental roads. Eventually 
it must prove one of the great steps in the advance of civiliza¬ 
tion; and it has been fitly compared in importance to the 
finding of the passage around the Cape of Good Hope or the 
building of the Suez and Panama canals. In 1898, too, 
Russia had compelled China to cede the magnificent harbor 
of Port Arthur and the right to extend the Trans-Siberian 
Railroad through Chinese Manchuria to that port. 

On the south, just after the opening of the nineteenth cen¬ 
tury, Russia secured the passes of the Caucasus. By the 
middle of the centhry she had advanced into Turkestan. From 
that lofty vantage ground she planned a further advance, 
and by 1895 she extended a great Trans-Caspian railway to 
within seventy-five miles of Herat, the “key to India.” 
Great Britain seemed ready to resist further advance by war; 
but a clash in Central Asia was postponed by Japan’s victory 
in the extreme East (pp. 578-81). 

In the last years of the nineteenth century Russia was busied 
with vast internal improvements, - not only the great railroads 
mentioned above, from Moscow to the Pacific and to the fron¬ 
tiers of India, but also a stupendous system of canals to connect 
her internal waterways. She was still in a primitive stage in¬ 
dustrially, and these useful projects were carried on largely by 
foreign workmen and foreign capital. Under such conditions 


AUTOCRACY AND CONSPIRACY 


553 


at home, Russia had every reason to desire peace abroad; but 
in 1904 the arrogant folly of her military classes plunged her 
into the war with Japan, as unjust as it proved ruinous. To the 
amazement of the world, Russia’s huge power collapsed utterly 
on land and sea, and she was thrust back from Port Arthur and 
Manchuria. 

In 1910 Russia covered eight and a half million square miles 
or about one seventh the area of the habitable earth; and she 
had a population of one hundred and sixty millions. The 
population was made up of some seventy different nationalities, 
but the great central core, comprising over two thirds the whole, 
was composed of Russian Slavs. The largest of the subject 
nationalities were the Poles (twelve millions) and the Finns 
(something over three and a half millions). There were also 
about five million Jews dispersed throughout the larger cities 
of the empire, especially at the seaports, and more than thirteen 
million widely scattered Tartars. 

Down almost to the World War, the government of Russia was 
an absolute despotism, — and highly centralized. In the middle 
of the nineteenth century no village could build a church or a 
school until the plan had been approved by a dilatory Board 
at St. Petersburg, and even a private house with five windows 
had to have a royal permit. But during all the century, too, 
a ferment of revolution was spreading through the land. . 

At the end of the Napoleonic wars, many young Russian 
officers came back to their homes full of the ideals of the French 
Revolution. The Tsar himself (Alexander I, 1801-1825) had 
been educated by a liberal French tutor; and for a time, in a 
weak, sentimental, indecisive way, he favored a liberal policy, 
and introduced a few reforms. Metternich won him from these 
tendencies; and then many educated and liberal Russians 
began to be conspirators against Tsarism. 

The cause of the conspirators was long hopeless, because it 
had no interest for the masses. Nowhere else in the world was 
the gap so complete between upper and lower classes. Four 


Extent in 
1910 


The sub¬ 
ject races 


The 

Autocracy 


And the 
revolution 
ary move¬ 
ments 


The serfs 


554 


RUSSIA, TO 1914 


And 

society 


Reaction 
under 
Nicholas I, 
1825-1855 


Beginning 
of the 
Slavophil 
movement 


Reforms of 

Alexander 

II 


fifths the population of European Russia were serfs, filthy, 
ignorant, degraded, living in a world wholly apart from that of 
the small class of educated Russians. 

Besides the serfs, the rural population comprised a numerous 
nobility, who were landed proprietors; and in the cities there 
were small professional and mercantile classes. For two hun¬ 
dred years (since Peter the Great) these upper classes had 
had at least a veneer of Western civilization. At the opening 
of the nineteenth century their conversation was carried on, 
not in Russian, but in French; and their books, fashions, and 
largely their ideas, were imported from Paris. 

The revolutionary conspirators from these upper classes 
were romantic dreamers. In December of 1825, the revo¬ 
lutionists attempted a rising. They met with no popular 
support, and the new Tsar Nicholas (a violent reactionary) 
exterminated almost the entire group with brutal executions, 
often under the knout. This cruelty, however, made “the 
Decembrists martyrs to the next generation of generous-minded 
Russian youth; and their ideas lived on in the great Russian 
writers of the middle of the century, like Gogol and Turgeniev. 

The reign of Nicholas I was marked also by the beginning of 
the Slavophil movement. This was a revolt among the educated 
classes to establish a native Russian culture, in contrast to the 
imported Western veneer. The Russians had begun to believe 
in themselves as the future leaders of a new civilization They 
looked forward to a vast Pan-Slav empire (to include Bohemia 
and the Slav states cf the Balkans) which should surpass Western 
Europe both in power and in the character of its culture. Nich¬ 
olas gave his support heartily to the Slavophils, in large part 
because he despised the Western ideas as to liberty and con¬ 
stitutional government. 

In the closing years of Nicholas, however, the humiliation of 
the Crimean War (p. 406) revealed the despotic bureaucratic 
system as weak, when pitted against Western Europe; and 
this helped the Russian liberals to win to their side the new 
Tsar, Alexander II (1855-1881). Alexander struck the shackles 


THE SERFS “ EMANCIPATED ” 


555 


from the press and the universities, sought to secure just treat¬ 
ment for the Jews, introduced jury trial, established a system of 
graded representative assemblies in the provinces (the zemstvos), 
and, in 1861, against the almost unanimous opposition of the 
nobles, emancipated the fifty million serfs. 

The serfs had always dwelt in little village communities. 
Now each village (mir) was left to manage its own local matters, 
and was given land for its support. The land, like the serf, 
was taken from the noble; but not enough of it. Each mir was 
to pay for its land. The Tsar paid the noble landlord down; 
and the mir was to pay the Tsar in small installments spread 
over forty-nine years. Alexander and his liberal friends in¬ 
tended each village to receive at least as much land as the vil¬ 
lagers had had for their support while serfs. But the noble 
officials, who carried out the details, managed to cut down 
the amount of land and to make the jprice unduly high. 

The peasants found themselves at once forced to eke out their 
scanty income by tilling the land of the neighboring landlord — 
on his terms. The annual “redemption payments” to the 
government, too, were excessive. More than half the peasant’s 
labor went to satisfy the tax-collector. By 1890, one third 
the peasant body had pledged their labor one or more years 
in advance to the noble landlords — and so had been forced 
back into a new serfdom. They remained ignorant and 
wretched, with a death-rate double that of Western Europe. 
As late as 1900, half their children died under the age of five; 
and every now and then large districts were devastated by 
famine — while vast tracts of fertile land lay uncultivated. 

Alexander “the Emancipator” after all was almost as vacil¬ 
lating in his liberalism as his father Alexander I had been. 
The peasants refused to believe that the Tsar meant them to 
pay for their land, or to give them such small allotments; and 
in countless places they rose in bloody riots against the nobility 
and the Tsar’s officers. The reactionary parts of society urged 
upon Alexander that such risings were the product of the pro¬ 
gressive writers and newspapers he had encouraged. As early 


Emancipa¬ 
tion of the 
serfs 

And the 

land 

problem 


The 

peasants re¬ 
enslaved 


Alexander’s 

vacillating 

policy 


556 


RUSSIA, TO 1914 


Persecution 
of liberals 


The 

Nihilists 


Reaction 
intensified 
under 
Alexander 
III and 
Nicholas II 


Religious 

persecution 


as 1862 the Tsar was won to this view. He began at once 
to suppress the liberal press. Writers who had thought them¬ 
selves within the circle of his friendship were imprisoned in 
secret dungeons or sent to hard labor in Siberian mines,— 
without trial, merely by decree, — and the brutal police sought 
to crush out all liberalism by barbarous cruelty. 

The liberals, in the sixties, had come to include the great 
body of university students. These youths, — men and women 
of good family, — ardent for the regeneration of their country, 
now organized societies to spread information about the peas¬ 
ants misery among the upper classes, and socialistic ideas 
among the peasants. These active Intelligentsia were horribly 
persecuted, and in the later seventies one branch of the radicals 
decided to meet violence with violence — the only alternative 
to submission. Their secret organization was popularly known 
as the Nihilist society. They deliberately resolved to sacrifice 
their own lives to the cause of liberty, and by assassination after 
assassination they sought to avenge the barbarous persecution 
of their friends and to terrify the Tsar into granting representa¬ 
tive government. Alexander at last decided to grant part of 
their demands. He prepared a draft of a constitution which 
was to set up a National Assembly; but the day before this plan 
was to be announced, the Nihilists dynamited him. 

Alexander III (1881-1894) returned without qualification 
to the policy of his grandfather Nicholas. What remained 
of Alexander II’s reforms was undone — except that serfdom 
could not well be restored in law. The press was subjected 
to a sterner censorship. University teachers were muzzled, 
being forbidden to touch upon matters of government in their 
lectures. Books like Green’s English People and Bryce’s Amer¬ 
ican Commonwealth were added to the long list of standard works 
whose circulation was forbidden. The royal police were given 
despotic authority to interfere in the affairs of the mirs. 

All this reactionary policy was continued by the next — and 
the last — of the Tsars, the incompetent Nicholas II (1894- 
191 7 ) - who also renewed the despotic Slavophil movement. 


THE NIHILISTS CRUSHED 


557 


The Finnish and German Lutherans of the Baltic regions, the 
Polish Catholics, the Armenian dissenters, the Georgians, and 
the Jews were all cruelly persecuted. Children were taken 
from parents to be educated in the Greek faith; native lan¬ 
guages were forbidden in schools, churches, newspapers, legal 
proceedings, or on sign boards; and against the Jews (who 
had already been cruelly crowded into “the Jewish Pale”) 
bloody pogroms were organized by police officers with every 
form of outrage, plunder, torture, and massacre. 

More than half the Jewish race then dwelt in Russia — 
whither they had fled in the JVIiddle Ages from Western perse¬ 
cution. The peasants and poorer townsmen hated them be¬ 
cause of their financial ability —^ for in modern Russia as in 
medieval England the Jews were the chief money lenders; and 
the official classes hated them because a large part of the In¬ 
telligentsia and of the more radical revolutionary leaders came 
from the Jewish race. To escape brutal persecution, great 
numbers of Russian Jews now fled to America. 

In one respect the Baltic districts had more cause for com¬ 
plaint even than the Jews. Finland, the old German provinces 
(Livonia, Esthonia, Courland), and Poland all excelled Russia 
proper in civilization, and each of them, at its acquisition by Russia, 
had been solemnly promised the perpetual enjoyment of its own 
language, religion, and laws. Russianization may sometimes 
have been a not unmixed evil to barbarous regions on the 
east; but it was bitterly hard upon these progressive western 
districts. 

By 1890, the police seemed to have crushed all reform agita¬ 
tion and all open criticism of the government. But there was 
an “Underground Russia’’ where fnodern ideas were working 
silently. Many liberals were growing up among the increasing 
class of lawyers, physicians, professors, and merchants, and, 
sometimes, among the nobles. 

More important still was the fact that about 1890 Russia 
began to be touched by the Industrial Revolution which had 


And the 
Jews 


Russianiza¬ 
tion of the 
Baltic region 


Under¬ 
ground 
Russia in 
1890 


The Indus¬ 
trial Revo¬ 
lution 


558 


RUSSIA, TO 1914 


And Social¬ 
ism 



transformed England a hundred years, and Germany twenty 
years, before. Moscow had been a “sacred city” of churches, 
marked by spires and minarets. In 1890, it was becoming 
an industrial center, with huge factories and furnaces, marked 
by smoke-hung chimneys. 

In such cities Socialism made converts rapidly among the 
new working class. There were two distinct bodies of these 


The Moscow Kremlin, — a view from the Moskvaretzky. The walls 
enclose 98 acres, with the most famous temples and palaces of old 
Moscow and, in the background, the modern government buildings. 
Kremlin, somewhat like the Greek acropolis , means a city fortress. 

i 

Russian Socialists. The larger body looked forward only to 
peaceful reform, like the Social Democratic party in other 
lands. The other was made up of Socialist-Revolutionists. 
This was a secret society, perfectly organized, which had ab¬ 
sorbed the old Nihilists. It held that violence was necessary 
and right in the struggle to free Russia from the despotism which 
choked all attempts at peaceful reform. In this day of per¬ 
fectly disciplined standing armies, with modern guns, open 
revolution is doomed to almost certain extinction in blood. 




“FIRST RUSSIAN REVOLUTION,” 1906 559 


So the Revolutionists worked by the dagger and the dynamite 
bomb, to slay the chief ministers of despotism. The society 
selected its intended victims with careful deliberation, and, 
when one had been killed, secretly posted placards proclaiming 
to the world the list of “crimes” for which he had been “exe¬ 
cuted.” Spite of every precaution, the Revolutionists, with 
complete disregard of their own lives, managed to strike down 
minister after minister among the most hated of the Tsar’s tools. 

The opportunity of the reform forces seemed to have come 
in 1905. The failure of Russia in the Japanese war showed 
that the despotic government had been both inefficient and 
corrupt. High officials had stolen money which should have 
gone for rifles and powder and food and clothing for the armies. 
During the disasters of the war itself, other officials stole the 
Red Cross funds intended to relieve the suffering of the wounded. 
The intelligent classes were exasperated by these shames and 
by the humiliating defeat of their country, and began to make 
their murmurs heard. The peasantry were woefully oppressed 
bv war-taxes. The labor classes in the towns were thrown out 
of employment, or lost wages in the general stagnation of in¬ 
dustry. While the Japanese war was still running its disas¬ 
trous course, Russia was convulsed, as never before, by strikes, 
peasant risings, and mutiny in army and navy. 

For a while longer the government thought to stifle such 
popular manifestations in blood. One instance, because un¬ 
der the eyes of foreign ambassadors, sent a thrill of horror 
through the civilized world. A great number of loyal citizens 
in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) had sent a petition to the Tsar, 
asking him to hear them in person when, on the following Sun¬ 
day, they should march to the palace to present their griev¬ 
ances — since they had lost faith in his officers. Then, Sunday 
morning, January 22, 1905, dense masses of men, women, and 
children, wholly unarmed, filled the streets leading to the royal 
palace. The Cossack cavalry charged these helpless throngs, 
and the palace troops mowed them down with machine guns. 


The liberal 
movement 
of 1906 = 

“ the First 

Russian 

Revolution’’ 


“ Red 
Sunday ;J 


560 


RUSSIA, TO 1914 


The Tsar 
calls the 
Duma 


Class 
divisions 
among the 
Liberals 


Reaction 
at court 


The origin 
of soviets 


" OW ’ for once > tlle educated classes spoke out forcefully, 
the day after Red Sunday, leading citizens of the capital joined 
in a public declaration that “ the government has declared war 
on the Russian people” and in an appeal to all good citizens to 
support the cause of reform. In March the terrified Tsar 
promised free speech and a Duma (representative assembly) 
providing, however, that it should be elected by landowners 
and that it should have no power except to advise. Then 
followed a general strike. By October the railways were idle. 
In the cities, stores were closed. Power houses shut down 
and electric lights went out. And now Nicholas called a Duma ’ 

to be elected by manhood suffrage and to hold true law-making 
power. & 

A S after the Emancipation Edict forty-five years before, 
the Russian people went wild with joy and hope; and again 
bitter disappointment followed. All Russia had seemed united 
against autocracy in demands for political reform; but never- 
theless Russia was divided within itself by a bitter class con- 

' lhe Clt f proIetariat was struggling for radical economic 
e ange as well as for political reform; especially for shorter 
mins and higher wages, for which many long-continued strikes 
were then in progress. The middle-class liberals, and espe- 
cally the employing capitalist class, hoped that representative 
govei nment with only the grant of more land to the peasants 

would remedy Russia s ills. Immediately after issuing the 
October decree for the Duma, the Tsar threw himself once more 
m o the arms of the reactionary official party, and sought to take 
advantage of this class division among the liberals. The prisons 
wtu-e emptied of criminals, who were then organized by the 
po me as patriots” - better known in history as the Black 

nlaces ' & f d W1 1 three W6eks ’ in a hundred diff erent 
places some four thousand radicals and labor leaders were 

assassinated. e 

This brutal violence of the government’s friends gave in¬ 
creased standing among the people to the radical Socialist 
movement. In all great cities there had been organized a 


THE DUMA OF 1906 


561 


Council of Workmen’s Deputies to guide the strikes. These 
Councils now began to be mighty political forces. The peasants* 
too, organized Councils of Deputies in many districts, and, in 
some places, revolutionarily inclined regiments made common 
cause with peasants and workingmen, and elected Councils of 
Soldiers’ Deputies. This was the birth of the later famous 
soviets — a desperate attempt to meet the Tsar’s duplicity and 
brutality by a new working-class government. 

But these soviet organizations at once began to antagonize 
the liberal capitalists by ill-timed demands as to hours and 
wages, enforced by general strikes. Accordingly the middle 
classes held aloof while the Tsar’s government used all its re¬ 
maining strength in the early winter to crush the new soviets. 

In April of 1906, midst gloom and anarchy, with 75,000 of 
Russia’s finest men and women suffering torment in dungeons 
as political prisoners, the Duma was at last brought together — 
the first representative assembly of the Russian nation. The 
Tsar had arranged the elections so as to leave most weight in 
the hands of the wealthy and noble classes, and the police 
interfered actively against radical candidates; but the revo¬ 
lutionary movement had swept everything before it. The larg¬ 
est party among the members were middle-class liberals, who 
called themselves Constitutional Democrats. The chief leader 
of this group was Miliukof, and it contained many other men of 
wise and moderate statesmanship. Next in numbers came the 
Peasants , with a program of moderate Socialism. The extreme 
Socialists of the towns ( Social Democrats) had in great measure 
refused to take part in the elections. Still they counted 25 
members. Of the total of 400, only 28 were avowed supporters of 
autocracy. The Tsar’s repudiation by the nation was complete. 

The world was amazed at the political ability and wise mod¬ 
eration of this first, inexperienced Russian Assembly. After 
its requests for a responsible ministry and for the abolition of 
martial law had been insultingly refused, it concentrated its 
efforts upon securing state lands for the suffering peasants. 
The Tsar, now in the hands of intensely reactionary advisers, 


Crushed for 
the time by 
the Tsar 


The Duma 
of 1906 


Dissolution 
of the 
Duma 


562 


RUSSIA, TO 1914 


was “sadly disappointed” that the Duma insisted upon “med¬ 
dling with matters that did not pertain to it”; and July 21 he 
dissolved it, declaring that he himself would care for the needed 
reforms. In vain now did the Constitutional Democrats appeal 
for support to the masses whose soviet organizations they 
had refused to help to save. 

vMence ^ Months of anarchy followed. The government fell back 
upon stern repression and intimidation, to suppress not only dis¬ 
order, but also political agitation. To meet this tyranny, the 
, extreme Revolutionists resorted to a new campaign of syste¬ 

matic political assassination. The unhappy land was again dis¬ 
tracted also by peasant risings and by strikes, — which were 
put down brutally by Cossack “punitive expeditions” in which 
thousands of unoffending people perished. More than a thou¬ 
sand political offenders were executed (many of them learned 
and gentle scholars who had led a wholly constitutional oppo¬ 
sition), and fifty thousand were sent to Siberia or to prison, 
while the Revolutionists counted up 24,239 others slain by the 
soldiery in putting down or punishing riots. Prisoners were 
tortured mercilessly, and in many cases were flogged to death 
0 T f “ a . A second Duma met March 5, 1907. The liberal members 
of the former assembly had been made ineligible for election, 
but this time the Social Democrats went into the campaign in 
earnest and elected nearly one third the members in spite of 
desperate efforts of the police to close their meetings and im¬ 
prison their leaders. With the remnants of the Constitutional 
Democrats and the Peasants, there was a large majority op- 

posed to the government. In June the Tsar ordered that some 

sixty Sociahst members be expelled as “traitors”; and when 
L , . t T ^“ ma a PP°| nted a committee to investigate, he dissolved 

missive 11 " ' len ’. b y arbitrary decree, he changed the plan of elections, 

Dumas 80 as to give power mainly to the great landowners. A third 

and a fourth Duma (1907 and 1912), elected on this basis 
fn-oved properly submissive. So did Russia enter the World 










T LEj W O VJT 


X X±£U 


_ -x vaJNAL 

Above. The Miraflores Locks, with the S s ^ , 

upper west chamber under tow of an efectric motor g ' 

B backed (In 1916) ^‘tht’bi?'dide” fromT 'rh^nn'*®! temporariI 5' 
left). The steamer^is ^F^Tu^SS.™ 1 (sh °™ » ‘ he 



























PART X 


THE WORLD IN 1914 

-->♦-- 

CHAPTER XLTI 

THE PROMISE OF A NEW AGE BEFORE 1914 

In spite of certain remaining dark spots on the globe, it was 
usual in 1900 to speak of the preceding hundred years as “the 
wonderful century.” No thousand years before had seen so 
much progress. Theodore Roosevelt’s day was farther removed 
from Napoleon’s than his from Charlemagne’s. In this mighty 
transformation, the main agents had been scientific invention, 
humane sentiment , and democracy . 

I. PROGRESS IN SCIENCE 

Very wonderful was the scientific advance. The close of 
the eighteenth century saw those inventions in England that 
created the age of iron, substituted steam and machinery for 
hand power in production, and so created the “Industrial 
Revolution” (pp. 356 ff.). Toward the middle of the next 
century came a second remarkable burst of scientific invention, 
in which America led, again revolutionizing daily life and in 
particular applying machinery to farm production (pp. 366-69). 
Then, toward the close of that same century came the third 
group, replacing the age of steam by the age of electricity, and 
transforming once more the face of the world, and the daily 
habits of vast populations, before the eyes of men still under 
middle age. Gasoline engines and electric engines furnished 
new power for locomotion, for factory, and for field. Men ex¬ 
plored the sea bottom in submarines and conquered the air. 

563 


Three 
stagos of 
the Indus¬ 
trial Revo¬ 
lution 




A new 
geology 


Ob4 NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENCE 

The electric street railway, the automobile, and auto trucks 
made for cleaner city streets, better country roads, and a vast 
saving of time and labor. Electric lights helped to banish crime 
along with darkness. Telephone, phonograph, wireless teleg- 




FO st°ead G Pa RA Th P A H^ R h AXLE T °t"• at the Howard Axle Works, Home- 
stead, Fa The drop-hammer, about to strike the white-hot axle weighs 

three^ and one-half tons. Fourteen such hammers are used in t 7ese 

raphy gave men new power to do and to enjoy. And along 
with this went such a transformation of all earlier machinery 
and processes as made those of 1850 quaint curiosities 

More important still has been the change in scientific ideas 
about the world and man. In 1833 Sir Charles Lyell published 
his Principles of Geology. Men had believed that the earth 
about them was essentially as it came from the hand of God, 
five or six thousand years before, modified in places by tre¬ 
mendous convulsions. Lyell explained mountains, plains, 













EVOLUTION AND BIOLOGY 


565 


' valleys, rock strata, as the results mainly of the slow action 
of water, frost, and other forces which we still see at work about 
us. This uniformitarian theory (supported by the discover 
of fossils in the rocks) quickly induced men to reckon the age 
of the earth by peons of time; and soon the discovery of human 
remains in old geologic strata compelled a new conception of 
the length of man’s life upon the earth. 

In the study of the animal world a like change was taking 
place. Here and there some thinker had hinted that the plants 
and animals we see about us must have all “evolved” by slow 
changes from one or at least from a few elementary types. 
In 1859 Charles Darwin gave this theory of evolution a definite 
form (so that it is commonly associated with his name), and 
showed one of the forces that has brought it about, in his Origin 
of Species hy Natural Selection. Revolutionary as this idea 
was at first, it has become almost universally accepted among 
educated people, although other factors have been added to 
the “survival of the fittest” — the cause upon which Darwin 
laid almost sole stress. 

Hardly less important was the discovery (about 1840) that 
each animal or vegetable organism is made up of minute cells 
of protoplasm (a living substance of a character resembling 
gelatine). These cells in each living thing, it was discovered, 
come from one original parent cell, and develop in different 
ways according to the nature of the organ they are to form 
(hair, skin, muscular tissue, etc.). This cell theory made 
possible a new scientific study of animal life — which is called 
biology. 

And biology has produced a new science of medicine. In 
the 80’s the French biologist, Pasteur, broke the way, proving 
the germ theory of disease, and inventing methods of inocu¬ 
lation against some of the most dreaded forms, like hydrophobia. 
Devoted disciples followed in his footsteps. During the Amer¬ 
ican occupation of Cuba after the Spanish-American war, Major 
Walter Reed showed that ordinary malaria and the deadly 
yellow fever alike were spread by the bite of mosquitoes. In 


Evolution 


The cellular 
composition 
of organic 
matter 


Progress in 
medicine 


566 


NINETEENTH CENTURY SCIENCE 


like manner it has been proved that certain fleas, carried by 
rats, spread the bubonic plague. In 1903 Dr. Charles W. Stiles 
proved^ that the inefficiency and low vitality of the “poor 
Whites in the southern United States were due to the parasitic 
hookworm. The special causes of typhoid and tuberculosis 
have become well known; and recently, it is claimed, the germ 



A Pani D R R n L ELECTRI l : Loc ° M ° TIVE on the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Si 
Paul Road on a slope of the Rockies. Forty-two such engines are i 

use to haul passengers and freight over the Continental Divide. Thi 
gine weighs 282 tons, has an electrification of 3000 volts, and can har 
x and a half million pounds of freight up a stiff grade at 16 miles a 

^ere’Jc r iure a d re nt ' ^ ^ *** PUU a paSSeRger train ’ lik * the on 
nere pictured, at a mile a minute on ordinary levels. 


that causes the dreaded infantile paralysis has been discovered, 
liach such discovery has enabled men to fight disease more 
successfully It is not improbable that in the not distant 
u ure all deadly contagious diseases may be practically ban- 
is ed from the earth, — as, according to medical journals, yel- 
ow ever is just now banished. Between 1850 and 1900 the 
average human life in civilized lands was lengthened by a fourth 
and population was trebled. 










WORLD SOLIDARITY 


567 


II. SOCIAL UPLIFT 

/ 

This larger and better life of the twentieth century, too, is 
bound together, for good and for ill, in a new human solidarity. 
Our big world is more compact than the small world of 1800 
was. Ox-cart and pack-horse have been replaced as carriers 
by long lines of cars moving thousands of tons of all kinds of 
freight swiftly across continents. For bulkier commerce the 
most distant ‘‘East” and “West” have been drawn together 
by the Suez Canal (opened in 1869) and the Panama Canal 
(opened in 1914); 1 while now the more precious articles and 
mails begin to be moved as by magic in airships, as Tennyson 
dreamed when in his youth he — 

“Saw the heavens fill with commerce — argosies of magic sails, 

Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales.” 

New methods of banking make it possible to transfer credit in 
an instant, by wire or wireless, between the most distant por¬ 
tions of the earth; and lines of communication are so organ¬ 
ized that it costs little more to send a letter or parcel around 
the earth than around the nearest street corner. The Minne¬ 
sota farmer’s market is not Minneapolis, but the world. The 
Australian sheep-raiser, the Kansas farmer, the South African 
miner, the New York merchant, the London banker, are parts 
of one industrial organism. 

All this solidarity means one more revolution in industry. 
The age of small individual enterprise has given way to an era of 
vast consolidation of capital and management — department 
stores, mighty corporations, huge trusts, flouring centers like 
Minneapolis, meat-packing centers like Chicago, money centers 
like Wall Street. And this consolidation has brought incalcula¬ 
ble saving of wealth in economy of management and in utiliza¬ 
tion of old wastes into by-products. The new unity of society ? 
too, has its moral side. Any happening of consequence is known 
within the hour in London, Petrograd, Peking, New York, San 
1 Special reports upon the building of these canals. 


A new 
human 
solidarity 


568 


NINETEENTH CENTURY PROGRESS 


A dark 
side 


Failure as 
yet to dis¬ 
tribute 
wealth 


The demand 
for “ social 
justice ” 


Growth of 
constitu¬ 
tionalism 


rancisco, and, within a day, in almost every hamlet where 
civilized men live. A world opinion shapes itself, in ordinarv 
imes, as promptly as village opinion could be brought to bear 
upon an individual citizen a century ago. 

But even before the horrible catastrophe of the World War it 
was plain enough that all this modern progress had a darker side 
True, there was more life, and better life; and there was more 
wealth to support life. The workers, too, though they got too 
tie of that wealth, got vastly more than in 1800. An 
industrious, healthy artisan of to-day usually has a more 
enjoyable life than a great noble a century ago. Still the in- 
iistnal organization which produced wealth with gratifying 
i apidity failed to distribute it equitably. The world had be 8 
come rich; but multitudes of workers remained ominously 
poor. And this modern poverty is harder to bear than that of 
earlier times because it is less necessary. Then there was 

’ 6 7 6 f h t0 dlvide ' Now th e poor man is jostled insultinglv 

y ostentatious affluence and vicious waste. 

Throughout the civilized world earnest men and women 

as never before m history, had begun to band themselves into 

many mds of social uplift ” organizations to relieve or remove 

t is misery. Until toward the close of the nineteenth century 

Then Z e h“ I" 6 " 6 i 111 ^ Charitable in their ch ". 

I hen they began to work, not merely to treat the social disease 

but to remove its cause. They ceased to call for charity, and 

began to work for social justice - for such an organization of 

industry as should secure to the worker a larger share of the 

rS£ir 30 inSUre him need of char- 

and nfore ” “ d StateSmen ^tered upon a new 

and more promising “war against poverty,” recognizing that 

such a course was necessary, not merely for the welfare of the 

poor, but also for the salvation of all society. 

III. DEMOCRACY TRIUMPHANT 

As late as 1830, we have seen, England, Switzerland and 
Norway were the only Old-World countries which were not 


DEMOCRACY TRIUMPHANT 


569 


absolute despotisms; and these countries were far from being 
the democracies they are now. During the remaining two 
thirds of the nineteenth century, constitutional government 
spread eastward from England through Europe, and west, 
from the United States to Japan. In 1900 Russia and little 
Montenegro (with the possessions of Turkey) were the only 
European states still unaffected by the movement, along with 
Turkey, Persia, China, and Siam in Asia; and in 1913 Siam was 
the only sovereign state on earth without a representative as¬ 
sembly and some degree of constitutional government. 

Except for Japan and China (pp. 573-82) the story has 
already been told for the more important lands. In Turkey 
soon after 1900, a “Young Turk” organization began agitation 
for a parliament; and, winning over most of the officers of the 
army, in 1908, this party forced the Sultan to accept a constitu¬ 
tion, after an almost bloodless revolution. Persia in 1906-7 
had already had a very similar revolution. In such countries, 
however, it will of course take time for a real constitutional¬ 
ism to permeate the masses of the people. 

Quite as significant as this spread of constitutional forms 
into Oriental lands was the swift extension of the franchise in 
western countries. We have traced that growth for most Euro¬ 
pean countries to full manhood suffrage, and have seen the 
beginning of a powerful movement for equal suffrage for men 
and women. After the World War, we shall see, this universal 
suffrage movement swiftly created real democracies in most 
great nations. 

Democracy is triumphant over other political forms. But 
its supreme test is still to be met. It has now to show not 
only that it can within each nation secure social justice at 
home, but also that it can establish lasting world peace by 
securing international justice. The tremendous difficulties of 
this task will appear in the next chapters. 


Turkey and 
Persia 


Universal 

suffrage 


Democ¬ 
racy’s prob¬ 
lems 


Trade es¬ 
sential to 
modem 
civilization 


“ Causes of 
imperial ” 
policies 


CHAPTER XLIII 

WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 

I. ENCROACHMENTS UPON AFRICA AND ASIA 

Modern civilization is based upon “industrialism.” The 
greater the industrial development of a country, the more em¬ 
ployment and better pay for its workingmen, and the more 
profit for its capitalists. Now the life blood of industrialism is 
trade: trade not merely with civilized nations, but (sometimes 
much more) with tropical and subtropical countries for oil, 
rubber, ivory, minerals, and other raw materials needed by fac¬ 
tories in civilized lands. Moreover, thanks to modern factory 
processes, every industrial country (which can get adequate 
supplies of raw materials) has a much greater factory output 
than its own people can buy. The factories cannot keep running 
lull speed without outside markets in which to sell. In the in¬ 
dustrial states, too (before the World War), wealth accumulated 
faster, at times, than it could be invested profitably — so that 
capitalists were anxious for outside investments, especially in 
countries with naturally rich but as yet undeveloped resources. 

Add to these facts a fourth fact, — that in most of the rich 
tropical and subtropical regions there have been (until lately) 
no strong states to protect the inhabitants against outside en¬ 
croachments and we have the main explanations of the rival¬ 
ries among the great civilized nations for colonial empire Each 
seeks the largest possible part of the world’s raw materials for 
its factories to work up into finished products, the largest mar¬ 
kets for those products (all the better if a sole, or exclusive 
market), and the best “concessions” from semi-barbarous states 

to its capitalists for exclusive rights to build railroads or de¬ 
velop mines. 


570 


TRADE AND “IMPERIALISM” 


571 


This “imperialism” (or desire for empire for the sake of trade) has 
been the underlying cause of most wars. And yet, under existing con¬ 
ditions, it is useless to blame any one nation for trying to grab the oil 
of Mesopotamia, the coal of China, the ivory of the Congo, or the 
rubber of Mexico. The blame lies in the amazing fact that the nations 
have not made more serious attempts to change the system of com¬ 
mercial cannibalism. Rightly seen, the vast raw wealth of the globe 
belongs to no one or two arbitrary political divisions of the globe’s 
population: it is the heritage of the whole world, present and to come. 
When we grow civilized enough, there will be some world-organization 
to conserve these resources and to see that all nations may share on 
some basis of equal opportunity or of need. True, this is much to 
expect while each nation still permits grasping individuals to engross 
within its own borders that natural wealth that should belong to all 
its people. But, if the task is great, so is the need. It must be solved, 
if civilization is to survive. Until there is such a world organization, 
annihilating world-war will not cease to threaten. The real work 
of a League of Nations will be not so much to forbid war, as to remove 
the chief excuse for war by doing justice among the peoples. 

In the eighteenth century, trade rivalry became world-wide 
war. From 1689 to 1783, France and England wrestled inces¬ 
santly for world empire, grappling on every continent and every 
sea; while, as allies of this one or of that, the other powers 
grasped at crumbs of European booty. The close saw France al¬ 
most stripped of her old dependencies; and a little later, when 
she seemed helpless in her Revolution, England sought to com¬ 
plete the victory. Then for a while Napoleon seemed likely to 
regain the Mississippi valley and India; but Waterloo left Eng¬ 
land “ the mightiest nation upon earth,” for some seventy years 
without an aggressive rival for world dominion. During that 
period, other European nations got along somehow because 
trade had not yet become the supremely vital thing it was soon 
to be. But steam and electricity were swiftly drawing the 
globe’s most distant provinces into intimate unity, and, with 
the spread of the Industrial Revolution, world trade was taking 
on a new importance. Accordingly, after 1871, the new indus¬ 
trial French Republic began to seek expansion in north Africa 
and southeastern Asia; and in 1884, at the Congress of Berlin, 


Imperialism 
and war 


In the eight¬ 
eenth cen¬ 
tury 


In the nine¬ 
teenth cen¬ 
tury 


572 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


New world- 
problems 


Partition of 
Africa 


Europe in 
Asia 


the new industrial German Empire gave notice that thenceforth 
it meant to share in the plunder. The next quarter-century saw 
a mad scramble between Germany, France, and the already 
paitially sated England for the world’s remaining rich provinces 
defended only by “inferior” races. European politics were 
suddenly merged in world politics. The possession of petty 
counties on the Rhine or the Danube ceased to interest peoples 
who had fixed their eyes on vast continents. 

Australia was already English. North America was held by 
the United States or England. South and Central America 
were protected beneath the shield of the Monroe Doctrine. 
Afnm, however, was largely unappropriated, and now its seiz¬ 
ure was swift. In 1880 only a few patches here and there on the 
coast were European; 1 in 1891 (except for Liberia and Abys¬ 
sinia) the continent was mapped out between European claim¬ 
ants (map opposite) — mainly between England, France, and 
Germany, though Belgium held the “Congo Free State,” a 
rich territory of 1,000,000 square miles in the heart of the con¬ 
tinent with 30,000,000 native inhabitants. (It must be Under¬ 
stood, however, that, except for English South Africa, and part 
of French Algeria, European settlement has not entered the con¬ 
tinent to any considerable degree, nor have the natives been 
Europeanized.) 

By 1890, also, the partition of Asia was well under way — 
though in this continent too, except for a few trading stations, 
there has been no real European “colonization.” Central and 
Northern Asia had become Russian; the vast, densely populated 
peninsula of India (with adjoining Burma) was English; the 
southeastern peninsula was mainly French. Of the five remain¬ 
ing native states, Afghanistan, Persia, and Siam were merely 
weak and helpless survivals permitted to exist by cautious Euro¬ 
pean diplomacy as “buffer states,” separating England from 
Russia on one side and from France on the other; and before 
the century closed, the Turkish Empire and even the ancient 
Chinese Empire had begun to go to pieces. 

1 Special reports: the explorations of David Livingstone and Henry Stanley. 







































































JAPAN 


573 


Here we must note that in the closing years of the nineteenth 
century two new actors appeared to dispute world empire with 
the old claimants. A war between Japan and China (p. 574) 
revealed despised Japan as a great modernized World Power 
that must henceforth be reckoned with, especially in Asiatic 
questions; and the Spanish-American War of 1898 brought 
the United States to the door of Asia. The United States had 
been sufficiently occupied for a hundred years in appropriating 
and developing her own vast territory from ocean to ocean, and 
had resolutely kept herself free from European complications; 
but now, her great task accomplished, she had already begun 
to reach out for the islands of the sea, and for Asiatic trade. 
Then during the war with Spain, she annexed Hawaii, and at 
the close she retained the Philippines. 

II. JAPAN 

Japan proper consists of a crescent-shaped group of islands 
with an area a fourth larger than the entire British Isles. Popu¬ 
lation is only slightly larger than the British, but it increases 
rapidly and it is already much more “crowded,” because only 
a small part of the land is tillable (much of that only with im¬ 
mense toil, in terraces of built-up soil on steep mountain sides), 
and because factory industry, though now growing rapidly, is 
still far less developed than in America or Europe. Accord¬ 
ingly, labor is very cheap, and the standard of living is low. In 
spite of this, the short, brown people have remarkably vigorous 
and well-developed bodies.and strong, alert intellects. Their 
manners are marked by Oriental courtesy (which our ruder 
Western world sometimes looks upon as extravagant if not 
deceitful), and naturally many of their customs are strange and 
even shocking to Europeans and Americans. 

Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Japan kept her¬ 
self sealed against the outside world. For two centuries, even 
to trade with foreigners had been punishable with death. The 
Mikado (emperor) was absolute and was worshiped as a god; 
and a small class of feudal nobles, backed by numerous heredi- 


The United 
States a 
World 
Power 


Land and 
people 


Western¬ 

ization 


574 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


Revealed a 
World 
Power: 
Chinese 
War of 
1894-5 


Russian 

rivalry 


tary military retainers (samurai) kept the common people in a 
bondage not unlike that in ancient Egypt. But in 1853 Com- 
modoie Peny, under orders from the United States government, 

by a show of force secured the opening of Japanese ports to 
American trade. 

Humiliated by this demonstration of the superior strength 
of Western civilization, the intelligent Japanese swiftly adopted 
many of its features. Before the close of the century, army, 
navy, schools, and industry were made over on Western models. 
Even sooner, feudalism and serfdom were abolished; and in 
1889 a liberal Mikado proclaimed a constitution which created 
a parliament and ministry at least as powerful as that then ex¬ 
isting in the German Empire. In recent years the ministry 
tends more and more to become truly “responsible”; and 
a progressive labor movement is likely to become a factor in 
politics. At the same time, it remains true that, since the fall 
of German and Russian autocracy in the World War, Japan 
is nearer a military despotism than is any other great power. 

Soon after Japan had become Westernized, she began to 
look eagerly for colonial acquisitions — partly as an outlet for 
her overcrowded population; and in 1894 her attempts to se¬ 
cure new privileges in the neighboring kingdom of Korea (a 
dependency of China) brought on war with the huge Chinese 
Empire. The Chinese fought with their usual fanatic bravery; 
but their arms and organization were Oriental, and little Japan 
won swift victory on land and sea. China agreed to cede not 
only Korea with the neighboring Port Arthur, but also the 
island of Formosa. But Japan in Korea would have forever 
blocked the natural Russian ambition for an ice-free Pacific 
port; and so the Russian Tsar, backed by France, insisted 
that Japan should renounce Korea and Port Arthur (which 

meant virtually that China should turn these districts over to 
Russia instead of to Japan). 

Japan was unprepared for war with European powers, and 
was wise enough to yield for the time; but she began at once to 
make ready patiently and skillfully for a struggle with Russia 



Hasedera Temple, Province of Yamato, Japan. Number eight of 
the thirty-three places sacred to Kwannon, the goddess of mercy, who, 
according to Japanese belief, divided herself into parts in order to min¬ 
ister to as many as possible, in accordance with their particular need. 










*4 ft s 
® -ft a> 

3 ft 

r: h 3 

-g W) x 

§ c 

a3 


GO 

C 

d 

o 

H 

3 

GO 

rC 

a 

• i-H 

-ft 

£ 


73 
ft 
ft +3 
O 

«h 4 - 

3 f 

CQ -ft 

o 

+-> 03 

gw 

ft 


ft 

o 


£ ® 
ft -ft 
ft ^ 


© 

-ft 

Eh • 

■ ft 

. -ft 
ft^ 
o 43 
+' ft 


43 

ft 

-ft 


43 £" 

ft £3 

i?T3 

H ft 
O § 

'g 8 

S ft 
ft -Q 


ft 

M 

ft 

-ft 

ft 

-ft 

43 


'M -4-2 

Jm 


W) 

p 

ft 2 
Sal)-ft 

ft 43 

O 
f-i 


ft 
> 
tft XI 
I 43 

4-3 “ft 


ft 

* 


43 

’8 -ft 

- M-ft 

^1- 
43 4 -, 4 , 

ft . £ 

ft >3 -ft 
4, 43 

>> j3 

f3 _G 


0 

& 


73 

ft 


* S 

W 'Cl 

Ph w 

P 4 

O b 


ft 
3 
O 

s 

' 4 -» *H 

O 3 

a; w 

s- 2 


H 

ft 

Eh 


?H • rH 

ft -ft 
Eh O 


GO 

ft 

43 

ft 

w> 







CHINA 


575 


— which came ten years later (p. 578). Meantime the Euro¬ 
pean powers felt at least obliged to recognize Japan more nearly 
as an equal. A series of new treaties removed various restric¬ 
tions which had interfered with Japanese control of her own 
trade, and also abolished the European courts which had been 
set up within her territory to try cases in which Europeans were 
interested. Then in 1902 Japanese diplomacy secured a twenty 
year treaty with England, in which each party agreed to aid 
the other in war if it were engaged with more than one power. 
(This meant that when the war with Russia should come, Japan 
would have only Russia to deal with.) 

III. CHINA 

Including its many outlying and loosely dependent districts 
(like Thibet and Mongolia) China has an area and a population 
about equal to those of Europe; but China proper, contain¬ 
ing half the area and three fourths the population, consists of 
eighteen provinces in the basins of the Hwangho and Yangtse 
river systems. Here, near the coast especially, population is 
densely crowded, considering the backward nature of industry. 
Most of the soil of China proper is fertile; but, in the absence of 
suitable means of transportation and communication, agricul¬ 
tural produce away from the coast has little value. The mineral 
deposits (including coal and oil) are probably the richest in the 
world; but, except for recent “concessions” to Europeans, 
they are almost untouched. 

Even in China proper, the people belong to many distinct 
tribes with quite different dialects and with little in common 
except their patriotic pride in their common Chinese civiliza¬ 
tion and their contempt for all outside “barbarians.” The 
Chinese civilization was old before that of Rome began. Print¬ 
ing, gunpowder, paper, delicate work in silks and in “ chinaware,” 
the mariner's compass, were all known in China for centuries 
before they appeared in Europe. The individual Chinamen, 
too, are industrious and energetic. But for the past 2000 years, 
Chinese culture has made no advance. 


Anglo-Jap¬ 
anese pact 
of 1903 


Land and 
people 


576 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


Stagnant 

civilization 


The 

Manchu 

conquest 


European 

trade 


Three causes help to explain this stationary or stagnant char¬ 
acter of Chinese civilization. (1) The very complex system of 
picture writing, employing thousands of symbols instead of 
only twenty-six, imprisons the mind of the educated class. This 
is the more serious because the educated class of mandarins is 
also the ruling and the official class. There is no hereditary 
nobility in China: the mandarin class is open to any youth who 
acquires the necessary ability to read and to pass a satisfactory 
examination in certain sacred books. But the strenuous atten¬ 
tion which all mandarin youth must give for so many formative 
years to the mere forms of words , and then to memorizing books 
of maxims, works against interest in new ideas. 

(2) Perhaps as a result of this, Confucius, the moral teacher 
of China, who about 500 b.c. compiled and arranged these 
sacred volumes, makes reverence for ancestors and for prece¬ 
dent fundamental virtues. To men so trained, innovation 
becomes a sin. 

(3) For thousands of years China was effectively shut off 
from all other civilized countries by almost impassable deserts 
and mountains, so that she received no new ideas from without. 

In the seventeenth century the Mongol Tartar rule over 
China (p. 235) was succeeded by the rule of the Manchus (a 
conquering tribe from north-central Asia). An early monarch 
of this line compelled every Chinaman to wear his hair in a queue 
as a sign of subjection. This line of emperors continued ab¬ 
solute in form down to our own time ; but very soon after 
the conquest the real management of the empire reverted to 
the mandarin class. 

After the voyage of Da Gama round the Cape of Good Hope, 
European traders began to try for admission into Cathay (China) 
to secure its tea and silk in exchange for Western goods. The 
Chinese government, however, for three centuries permitted 
these foreigners to deal only in the one port of Canton — where 
Portuguese, Dutch, and English established posts. The Eng¬ 
lish found the greatest profits in bringing in opium from India. 


I CHINA AND EUROPE 577 

The Chinese government saw that this drug was ruining thou¬ 
sands of its people, and, very properly, in 1839 it tried to stop 
that trade altogether. The English government then entered 
upon the “ Opium War,” and it was supported by English public 
.opinion, which did not realize the magnitude of the opium evil, 
but looked upon the war as one of principle, intended merely 
to break through barbarous trade restrictions — as the United 
States was soon to do in Japan (p. 574). 

England of course was speedily victorious, and the treaty 
of peace forced China to cede the island of Hongkong (which 
is still British) and to open to foreign commerce a number of 
important ports. The helpless Empire was soon compelled 
also to admit Christian missionaries and to permit foreigners 
to travel through its realms. 

Next came the actual seizure of whole outlying provinces — 
Burma by England, much of Indo-China by France, and the 
valley of the Amur by Russia. After the Jap-Chinese War of 
1894-5, too, Russia, in return for her “protection,” induced 
China to “lease” her Port Arthur for a hundred years (!) and 
to grant her railway rights across Manchuria (with the admis¬ 
sion of Russian soldiers to guard the railway). 

Then followed quickly seizures of territory in China proper. 
How Germany entered the Shantung peninsula has been told 
(p. 522). That act stimulated England to “induce” China 
(by the appearance of a fleet of warships) to “lease” to her the 
port of Waihaiwai — just between Port Arthur and the new 
German port Kiaochow. France secured Kwangchow-wan 
toward the south. 

But the peril called forth a violent outburst of patriotism. 
The mass of the people resented bitterly the interference of 
“foreign devils” in their affairs, and a secret society (the Boxers), 
pledged to rid China of foreigners, swept the country. In 1900 
came a widespread Boxer rising. Many missionaries and trav¬ 
elers were massacred; the German minister was slain; and 
the other European embassies in Peking were besieged. 

The siege was soon raised, and the Boxer rising crushed with 


The Opium 
War 


Disinte¬ 

gration 


The Boxer 
rising 






578 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


America’s 
“ Open 
Door ” 
policy 


The Russo- 
Jap War, 
1904-1905 


savage retaliation, by a relief expedition in which Russia, Japan, 
the United States, England, France, and Germany joined. It 
seemed probable that the European powers would now seize 
large “indemnities” in territory, and perhaps break China in 
fragments. Largely through the insistence of the United States, 
the indemnities were finally taken instead in money. 

Even before the Boxer rising the American Secretary of 
State, John Hay, had urged upon the powers the policy of pre¬ 
serving Chinese territorial integrity, in return for an “open 
door” policy by that country, suggesting also that each of the 
powers should apply that policy in those “spheres of influence” 
it had already acquired. This “ open door ” program, forcefully 
supported by America and England, and by all the small com¬ 
mercial countries — against both open and secret opposition 
by Kaiser William of Germany — had much to do now with 
preventing the complete dismemberment of China. Of Course 
the main incentive of American policy was the wish to keep rich 
Oriental provinces open to American trade. But this policy 

perfectly proper in itself — fell in happily with the interests 
of humanity 

During the Boxer rising, however, Russia had occupied Chi¬ 
nese Manchuria. She claimed that such action was necessary 
to protect her railroad there, and promised to withdraw at the 
return of peace. In 1902 this pledge was solemnly repeated; 
but, before 1904, it was clear that such promises had been made 
only to be broken, and that Russia was determined not to loosen 
her grasp upon the coveted province. Moreover, she began 
to encroach upon Korea. To Japan this Russian approach 
seemed to imperil not only her commercial prosperity, but her 
independence, and she resorted to war. 

To most of the world, Japan’s chances looked pitifully small. 
Russian advance in Asia seemed irresistible, and the small 
island state appeared doomed to defeat. But Russia fought at 
long range. She had to transport troops and supplies across 
sia by a single-track railroad. Her railway service was of a 
low order (like all her forms of engineering), and her rolling stock 


WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN 


579 


was inferior and insufficient. To be sure, it was supposed that 
immense supplies had already been accumulated at Port Arthur 
and in Manchuria, in expectation of war; “but it proved that 
high officials of the autocracy had made way with the larger 
part of the money designed to secure such equipment. In¬ 
efficiency, corruption, lack of organization, were matched only 
by boastful overconfidence. 

Japan, on the other hand, had the most perfectly organized 
army, hospital service, and commissariat the world had ever 
seen. Her leaders were patriotic, honest, faithful, and always 
equal to the occasion; and the whole nation was animated by 
a spirit of ardent self-sacrifice. By her admirable organization, 

Japan was able, at all critical moments, to confront the Russians 
with equal or superior numbers, even after a year of war, when 
she had rolled the battle line back several hundred miles 
tow r ard the Russian base. 

At the outset, Japan could hope for success only by secur¬ 
ing naval control of Asiatic waters. Russia had gathered at 
Port Arthur a fleet supposedly much stronger than Japan’s 
whole navy; but (.February 8, 1904) Japan struck the first blow, 
torpedoing several mighty battleships and cruisers. The rest 
of the Russian fleet was blockaded in the harbor; and, to the 
end of the war, Japan transported troops and supplies by water 
almost without interference. 

Korea was swiftly overrun. The Russians were driven back Yalu, Port 

from the Yalu in a great battle, and again defeated at Liaou and 

. . Mukden 

Yang; and after a seven months’ siege, marked by terrible 
suffering and reckless sacrifice on both sides, the Japanese cap¬ 
tured the “invulnerable” Port Arthur (January, 1905). The 
severe northern winter interrupted the campaign ; but in March, 

1905, the Japanese resumed their advance. The Battle of Muk¬ 
den was the most tremendous military struggle the world had 
seen. It lasted fifteen days. The battle front extended a hun¬ 
dred miles, and a million men were engaged, with all the terrible, 
destructive agencies of modern science at their command. The 
Russians were completely routed, and driven back on Harbin. 


580 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


Togo’s naval 
victory 


Treaty of 
Portsmouth 


The Chi¬ 
nese 

Revolution 


Russia’s only chance was to regain command of the sea. 
During the winter of 1905, after a year of delays, a huge fleet, 
far exceeding the Japanese navy in number and in size, but 
poorly equipped and miserably officered, had set out on the 
long voyage from the Baltic. By a breach of neutrality on the 
pait of France, it was allowed to rest and refit at Madagascar, 
and again at the French stations near Southern China; and in 
May it reached the Sea of Japan. There it was annihilated by 
the splendidly handled Japanese fleet, under Admiral Togo, in 
the greatest of the world’s naval battles. 

Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, now 

offered his good offices” to secure peace; and a meeting of 
envoys was arranged (August, 1905, at Portsmouth, N. H.), at 
which the Treaty of Portsmouth was signed. Japan’s demands 
were exceedingly moderate, and she yielded even a part of these 
at President Roosevelt s urgent appeal for peace. Russia agreed 
(1) to withdraw from Chinese Manchuria, (2) to cede the Port 
Arthur branch of her railroad to China, (3) to recognize a Jap¬ 
anese protectorate in Korea, and (4) to cede to Japan the south¬ 
ern half of Sakhalin, — an island formerly belonging to Japan 
but occupied by Russia in 1875. 

The most important results of the war were indirect results. 
Russia was checked in her career of aggression in Europe and 
toward India, as well as in the Far East, and the collapse of 
her despotic government gave opportunity for the beginning 
of a great revolution in society and politics (p. 558). Her de¬ 
feat was a blessing to her own people. On the other hand, 
victory intensified imperialistic and militaristic tendencies in 
Japan, and her cruel rule in Korea soon alienated much of the 
sympathy her gallantry had won in America and England. 

One other change, vast and beneficent, is at least closely 
connected with the war. China had recently begun to follow 
Japan s example in sending part of her youth abroad to com¬ 
plete their education, especially to America; and Western 
ideas had begun to spread among the mandarin class. The 


CHINA A REPUBLIC 


581 


national humiliation in the war with Japan in 1894 and in the 
Boxer War, and now the marvelous victory of Westernized Japan 
over Russia, reinforced the advocates of Western civilization 
for China. In 1909 the regent (Empress Dowager, whose 
Emperor-son was still a babe) promised a constitution “ in the 
near future.” The agitation of the liberals then forced her to 
fix the date for 1913. But this was not soon enough. In 
1911 Central China rose in revolution, to make the many prov¬ 
inces of the empire into a federal republic. 

The movement spread with marvelous rapidity, and in a 
few weeks the Republicans, in possession of the richest and 
most populous parts of the empire, set up a provisional republi¬ 
can government, at Nanking, under the presidency of Dr. Sun 
Yat Sen. In an attempt to save the monarchy, the Empress 
then issued a constitution, and called to power a moderate re¬ 
former, Yuan Shih Kai (yoo-an she ki). When it quickly 
appeared that this was not enough, the Manchus abdicated. 
Yuan Shih Kai established a provisional republican government 
at Peking, and opened negotiations with the Nanking govern¬ 
ment. Sun Yat Sen resigned, and the two provisional govern¬ 
ments elected Yuan Shih Kai president of the “Republic of 
China.” 

In April, 1913, the first Chinese parliament assembled, rep¬ 
resenting four hundred million people. The new president, 
however, proved self-seeking and reactionary. Leading lib¬ 
erals were assassinated, supposedly by his orders, and probably 
only his own death kept him from making himself emperor. 
The Peking government remains (1922) virtually a military dic¬ 
tatorship, engaged in wasting struggles with a renewed attempt 
at a republic in South China and with military adventurers 
from the north. 

A fourth of the population of the globe cannot be expected 
to lift itself into civilization and orderly freedom in a day. 
Progress in China, however, has gone much further than a 
mere change in external political forms. Western types of 
schools and of industry have been introduced over wide areas 


China a 
republic 


582 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


in the brief period, 1913-1922, and much advance has been 
made in freeing women from ancient servile customs. 

IV. MAKING “ALLIANCES” FOR PEACE 


The Triple 
Alliance 


Bismarck 
prefers Aus¬ 
tria to 
Russia 


Italy drawn 
into Bis¬ 
marck’s 
league 


The new social solidarity (p. 567) had its peril as well as its 
promise. By 1910, Europe had fallen into two hostile camps, 
the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. 

1. After 1871 Bismarck sought to isolate France, so as to 
keep her from finding any ally in a possible “war of revenge.” 
To this end he cultivated friendship especially with Russia and 
Austria. Austria he had beaten in war only a few years earlier 
(1866); but the ruling German element in Austria was quite 
ready now to find backing in the powerful and successful Ger¬ 
man Empire. 

Soon, however, Bismarck found that he must choose between 
Austria and Russia. These two were bitter rivals for control 
in the Balkans. The Slav peoples there, recently freed from 
the Turks, looked naturally to Russia, who had won their free¬ 
dom for them, as the “Big Brother” of all Slavs and all Greek 
religionists. But Austria, shut out now from control in Central 
Europe, was bent upon aggrandizement to the south. In par¬ 
ticular her statesmen meant to win a strip of territory through 
to Saloniki, on the Aegean, so that, with a railroad thither, they 
might control the rich Aegean trade. Now Serbia, one of these 
Slav states, dreamed of a South Slav state reaching to the Adri¬ 
atic. This would have interposed an inseparable barrier across 
the path of Austria s ambition. Accordingly Austria sought 
always to keep Serbia weak and small; while Russia, hating 
Austria even more than she loved the Balkan Slavs, backed 
Serbia. (Map, p. 595.) 

This rivalry between Austria and Russia became so acute 
by 1879 that there was always danger of war; and in that year 
Bismarck chose to side with Austria as the surer ally. Accord¬ 
ingly formed a definite written alliance with Austria to the 
effect that Germany would help Austria in case she had a war 
with Russia, and Austria would help Germany in case she were 






































































































































EUROPEAN ALLIANCES 


583 


attacked by France and any other Power. Three years later, 
while Italy was bitterly enraged at the French seizure of Tunis 

(p. 503), Bismarck added Italy to his league, making it the 
Triple Alliance. 

2 . Then Russia and France, each isolated in Europe, drew The Dual 
together for mutual protection into a “Dual Alliance” (1884). ^nceof 
England long held aloof from both leagues. In the eighties 
and nineties, England and France were bitter rivals in Africa, 
and England and Russia, in Asia. But after Bismarck’s fall, England’s 
England began to see in the German emperor’s colonial ambi- “ s Pl endid 
tions a more threatening rival than France; and Russia’s de- lsolation ’’ 
feat by Japan made Russia less dangerous. German militar¬ 
ism, too, was deeply hateful to English democracy. Moreover, 

England and France were daily coming to a better understand¬ 
ing, and in 1903 a sweeping arbitration treaty put any war be¬ 
tween them almost out of question. Soon afterward, England 
and Russia succeeded in agreeing upon a line in Persia which 
should separate the “influence” of one power in that countrv 
from the “influence” of the other, so removing all immediate The Triple 
prospect of trouble between the two. From this time the Dual Entente 
Alliance became the Triple Entente — England, France, and 
Russia. England was not bound by definite treaty to give either 
country aid in war; but it was plain that France and Russia 
were her friends. 

Each of the two huge armed leagues always protested that Thealli- 
its aim was peace, and for half a century after 1871 Europe did ances and 
have no war, except the struggles in the half-savage Balkans. PeaCe 
But this “peace” was based upon fear, and it was costly. Year 
by year, each alliance strove to make its armies and navies 
mightier than the other’s. Huge cannon were invented, only 
to be cast into the scrap heap for still huger ones. A dread- 
naught costing millions was scrapped in a few months by some 
costlier design. The burden upon the workers and the evil 
moral influences of such armaments were only less than the 
burden and evil of war (p. 511). In every land voices began 
to cry out that it was all needless: that the world was too 


584 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


Christian and too wise ever again to let itself be desolated by a 
great war. And then came some interesting if not very zealous 
efforts to find new machinery by which to guard against war — 
in standing arbitration treaties, permanent international tri¬ 
bunals like the Hague Court, and occasional World Congresses. 

V. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 


The first 
modem 
“ arbitra¬ 
tion ” 


The Hague 
Congress of 
1899 


The first case of arbitration between nations in modern times 
was arranged by one clause 1 of the Jay Treaty of 1794 between 
England and the United States. For nearly a hundred years 
this sensible device continued to be used mainly by the two 
English-speaking nations; but before the close of the nineteenth 
century it began to spread rapidly to other lands. During that 
century several hundred disputes were settled honorably, peace¬ 
fully, and justly, by this process. 

But in each of these cases a special treaty had to be negotiated 
before arbitration could begin — with every chance for war 
before such an arrangement could be made. Now the closing 
years of the nineteenth century saw agitation for “general arbi¬ 
tration treaties ” by which nations might agree in advance to sub¬ 
mit disputes to a certain court of arbitrators. In 1897 a treaty 
of this kind between England and the United States failed of 
adoption because of opposition in the United States Senate, 
though it had been recommended vigorously first by President 
Cleveland and afterward by President McKinley. Then leader¬ 
ship in this great movement passed for the time away from the 
English-speaking peoples. 

On August 24, 1898, by order of Tsar Nicholas (a sentimental 
lover of peace), the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs handed 
to the representatives of the different nations in St. Petersburg 
a written suggestion for a world conference to consider some 
means for arresting the danger of war and for lessening the bur¬ 
den of the armed peace. Out of this suggestion there grew the 

1 Regarding the disputed boundary between Maine and Nova Scotia. 
See West’s American History and Government, § 232, or American People , 
§ 406. 


arbitration treaties 


585 


Hague Peace Conference of 1899. Twenty-six nations were Germany 
represented, including Mexico, Siam, Japan, China, and Persia defeats P ro 

~r P " aCti , Cal ! y al ! the ^dependent states of the world except 
the South American republics. Never before had any gather¬ 
ing so nearly approached a “ parliament of man.” It was found 
impossible to put any limit upon armament, because the Ger¬ 
man representatives refused to consider that matter; but agree¬ 
ments were reached to regulate the methods of war in the in¬ 
terests of greater humanity (futile though such agreements were 
soon to prove), and, in spite of German opposition, the Congress 
provided a standing International Tribunal for arbitration be¬ 
tween nations. 

No nation was compelled to submit its quarrels to this Hague 
Tribunal, but machinery was now ready so that nations could 
escape war, without loss of dignity, if they desired. (In the 
following years many important cases were so settled.) The 
next step was for groups of nations to pledge themselves to make 
use of this machinery, or of similar machinery. This pledge is 
the essence of a “general arbitration treaty.” 

While the Hague Conference was sitting, Chili and Argentina Chili and 
(which had not been invited to the Conference) were on the 
verge of war over a boundary dispute in the Andes. For the 
next two years both governments made vigorous preparations, 

— piling up war taxes, increasing armaments, building and buy- 
ing ships of wai. But at the last moment a popular movement, 
led by bishops of the Catholic Church in the two countries, 
brought about arbitration; and soon after, the boundary was 
adjusted rationally by a commission of geographers and legal 
experts. So well pleased were the two nations with this in¬ 
dividual case of arbitration that they proceeded to adopt a 
general treaty by which they bound themselves, for a period 
of five years, to submit all disputes which might arise between 
them to a specific tribunal. 

This was the first “general arbitration treaty” ever actually 
adopted (June, 1903). But others were already in preparation 
in Europe; and, four months later (p. 583), France and Eng- 


586 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


land adopted one, agreeing to submit future disputes to the 
Hague Tribunal. Others followed swiftly, until most civilized 
states (except Germany) were joined with one or more other 
states in such agreements, usually, however, with important 
reservations as to “national honor,” which often destroyed the 
force of the agreement. 


Excursus: 

Spanish 

America 


The splendid example to the world set by Argentina and Chili 
(p. 585) suggests forcibly that Spanish America must be 

taken into account in 
the future world prog¬ 
ress. In recent years 
these two countries, 
along with Brazil, 
have shown a growing 
disposition to act in 
close agreement in 
foreign relations, so 
that they are some¬ 
times referred to 
(from their initials) 
as the ABC Concert. 
The first striking in¬ 
stance of such concert 
was a joint suggestion 
from the three in 1915 
for mediation between 
the United States and 
Mexico, — apparently 
with view to protect¬ 
ing Mexico against 
unfriendly designs 
mistakenly attributed 

_ w ill an 

elevation of 12,000 feet on the boundary line to the United States, 

between Chili and Argentina, erected by the (Cf West , g American 

People, 703-4.) 



Copyright by Publisher’s Photo Service. 

The Christ of the Andes 
A monument of good-will standing 


two countries to commemorate the arbitration 
of their boundary dispute. 






SPANISH AMERICA 


587 


How the Spanish-American states became independent has 
been briefly told (pp. 340-4). Argentina’s war of independ¬ 
ence lasted from 1816 to 1823. Some years of turbulent dis¬ 
order followed ; but the adoption of the present republican con¬ 
stitution, in 1853, ushered in an orderly and stable era of progress. 
The country comprises fourteen “States” and ten “Territories,” 
under a federal system similar to that of the United States. 
In the sixties, the government began to build up an excellent 


system of public schools, with Normal schools officered largely 
by teachers drawn from the United States. The population is 
about as large as that of Canada; and indeed Canada and Ar¬ 
gentina may be said to be close rivals for second place in power 
and civilization upon the Western continent. 

Brazil became independent of Portugal in 1821, but it kept Brazil's glo- 
a monarchic government until 1889. In that year the “em- revolu ' 
peror,” Dom Pedro II, bowed magnanimously to the rising 
republican sentiment of the country, and, by his abdication, 
removed the danger of a violent revolution. Brazil’s area is 
greater than that of the United States, but the country is mainly 
undeveloped. Of a population of 25 millions, only about a third 
are Whites, and these are settled near the coast. 

These two states are perhaps the most progressive of the 
South American republics, though some of the others press 
them closely. Until very recent times, the main interest of 
the outside world in these countries has been in regard to their 
trade. They export large quantities of agricultural products 
and of raw materials. Argentina sends to Europe immense 
shipments of frozen meats and of hides and grain. Brazil 
exports coffee, sugar, tobacco, cotton, rubber, cocoa, dye- 
woods, and nuts. Chili sells costly nitrates and large supplies 
of precious metals. They are making rapid progress in 
manufacturing; but they are still buyers of factory goods on 
a large scale. 

The trade of the South American countries is largely in the Spanish 
hands of England — though before the World War Germany 
had begun to make rapid inroads upon England’s control. In States 


588 


WORLD POLITICS TO 1914 


spite of her favorable position geographically, the United States 
has not a sixth as much of that trade as England has. 

One of the promising features in present world conditions, 
however, is the marked tendency in the United States for the 
people to free themselves from their old ignorant and silly con¬ 
tempt for Spanish America. The increased attention to Span¬ 
ish in our high schools is a hopeful sign. A true understanding 
of one another’s civilization between the great Republic of the 
northern continent and its younger sisters to the south will 
count for progress in many ways — of which improved trade 
relations will be only the least important. 


Hague Con¬ 
gress of 
1907 


And the 
approach 
of war 


In 1907, at the suggestion of the United States, a Second 
Hague C onference met. This time the South American repub¬ 
lics were represented. The Conference extended somewhat the 
work of the first meeting, but again England’s proposals to 
limit na\ ies and armies failed because of opposition from, Ger¬ 
many and Austria. It was growing more and more plain that 
all these noble efforts for peace were vain unless supplemented 
by radical measures of disarmament; and Germany’s implac¬ 
able opposition made this unattainable except by a better 
organized world. 

Germany s resistance to disarmament was due, of course, to 
the militaristic spirit dominating her government (ch. xxxvii), 
but it was also closely connected with her insistent feeling that 
she must acquire (by force, since she saw no other way) a larger 
“ P^ce in the sun,” — greater colonial dominion. The nine¬ 
teenth century “expansion” of Europe into Africa and Asia 
(unlike the colonial expansion of the eighteenth century) had 
been carried forward at the expense of savage or semi-barbarous 
peoples only. For a hundred years no “great” war had been 
waged between Christian nations avowedly for greed. Indeed, 
toward the close, whenever one nation made an important 
seizure of booty, some international conference arranged com¬ 
pensatory gains for any seriously discontented rival — and so 
preserved temporarily a delicate “balance” of interests. 




SECOND HAGUE CONFERENCE 


589 


But this balance was one of exceedingly unstable equilibrium. 
A touch might tip it into universal ruin. And there were no 
materials to continue adjusting it on the old plan . The world 
was now parceled out. Further expansion of consequence by 
any “power” meant direct conflict with some other “power.” 
Moreover, so complicated had rivalries and alliances become, 
any conflict at all now meant a world conflict; and, so “ im¬ 
proved” were agencies of destruction, a world struggle now 
meant ruin out of all comparison with earlier wars. 

To-day this is plain enough. But until the late summer of 
1913 the certain danger was glimpsed but dimly (outside the 
German war lords) and by only a few “dreamers.” Compla¬ 
cently the peoples and their “practical” statesmen continued 
to drift on the brink of unparalleled disaster. They did not seri¬ 
ously expect ever to use their crushing armaments; but neither 
did they resolutely seek to get rid of them and to develop this 
feeble arbitration movement into a real guarantee of peace. 

For Further Reading. —Eduard Fueter’s World History; William 
Spence Robertson’s History of the Latin-American Nations; Warshaw’s 
The New Latin America. These three admirable treatments are recent, 
'all appearing in 1922. 


A world 
adrift 


PART XI 

THE WORLD WAR 


Land and 
races 


The Greeks 


Roumanians 


Albanians 




CHAPTER XLIV 

THE CONFLAGRATION BURSTS FORTH 

I. THE BALKAN FUSE 

We have seen materials heaped for a world conflagration. A 
fuse was found in the Balkan situation. The little Balkan 
district is a crumpled criss-cross of interlacing mountains and 
valleys, peopled by tangled fragments of six mutually hostile 
races. 

A century ago (and for four centuries before) all southeast 
Europe beyond Austria and Russia was part of Turkey. But 
the Turks were mere invaders and scattered rulers. They were 
not numerous in Europe except near Constantinople, and they 
had no part in European civilization. In the old Hellenic pen¬ 
insula dwelt the Greeks, with the memories of their ancient 
greatness. North of the Danube lay the Roumanians, proud of 
their legendary descent from Roman colonists in Dacia and 
with a language closer to-day to the old Latin than is any other 
living European language. In blood the Roumanians are no 
doubt now mainly Slav. Only half their race lived in “ Rou¬ 
manian One fourth dwelt in Bessarabia, which Russia had 
seized from the Turks in 1812 ; and another fourth were in Tran¬ 
sylvania, which Hungary had held ever since she conquered it 
from the Turks in the eighteenth century. 

Between these Greek and “Roman” peoples lay the Bul¬ 
garians, the Serbs, and, along the Adriatic just north of Greece, 
the Albanians. These last were wild herdsmen, descendants 
of the ancient Illyrians. For the most part they had adopted 

590 



LAND AND PEOPLES 


591 


Mohammedanism and they willingly supplied excellent troops 
for the Turkish army; but in other respects their poverty and 
their mountains made it possible for them to keep a rude sort 
of self-rule, without much interference from Constantinople. 

The Serbs were the leading survivors of the conquering South The Serbs 

Slavs who settled in the Balkan regions in the sixth century. ^ t . heir 

° ^ divisions 

They had long been imbued with a natural ambition to restore 
their ancient empire as it stood when the Turk overthrew it in 
the fatal battle of Kossova, in 1389 (p. 121). But even more 
than the Roumanians, the South Slavs had been broken up by 
accidents of war. The northwestern part, the Bosnians, had re¬ 
mained independent longer than Serbia proper : and then, when 
they were conquered, their nobles became Mohammedans, to 
secure Turkish favor, though the peasants remained Greek 
Christians — like most of the subject peoples outside Albania. 

Other northern parts of Serbia, lands of the Croats and Slovenes, 
were reconquered from Turkey by Hungary in the eighteenth 
century, and so were no longer part of the home land, to which by 
race and language they belonged. Moreover, in the fastnesses Monte- 
of Montenegro (“Black Mountain”) dwelt some 200,000 half- negrins 
savage Serbs who had never yielded to the Turks, but had kept 
their freedom at the cost of “five hundred years of ferocious 
heroism.” In Serbia itself, the Turks had for the most part 
killed off the nobles. The village life was left, however, much 
as it had been of old. The people managed their local matters 
in small democracies, and earned their living as farmers and 
herdsmen of droves of pigs. As in all Christian lands ruled by 
the Turk, oppression and cruelty dwarfed their civilization. 

East of Serbia, beyond a dividing mountain range, lay the TheBul- 
Bulgarians. The “Bulgars” came into the peninsula as con- ganans 
querors from central Asia some two centuries later than the 
Slav Serbs. Originally they were baggy-trousered Asiatic 
nomads, akin to Tartars and Turks, and to-day they have in¬ 
tense pride in their ancient history as a race of conquerors. 

But in blood they have been so absorbed by the Slavs among 
whom they settled that there is little real difference in race be^ 


592 


Race 

hatreds 


The four 
great Slav 
branches 


Rise of in¬ 
dependent 
Slav states 


THE BALKANS TO 1914 

tween them and Roumanian on the one side or Serb on the 
other. 

Still a long history of rivalry, warfare, and mutual cruelty 
has left an intense “race” hatred between Bulgars, Serbs, 
and Greeks; and this hatred has been made hotter by the fact 
that each one of the three races had hoped to win for itself the 
northern Aegean coast from the decaying Turkish power. 


This is a proper place to survey the distinctive marks of 
the four great divisions of European Slavs: (1) the Russians , 
influenced by long Tartar domination in the Middle Ages, by 
admixture with various border peoples, and by the Greek 
Church; (2) the Poles, set off from the Russians by the adop¬ 
tion of Latin Christianity and by German instead of Tartar 
influence; (3) the Bohemians and neighboring Slavic peoples, 
now known as Czecho-Slovaks, resembling the Poles in their 
history but dominated in recent centuries by Austrian Ger¬ 
mans; and (4) the “South Slavs ” of the Balkans, with a 
promising Greek influence in the early Middle Ages, followed by 
a long and crushing subjection to the Turk. 


We have seen how the rule of the Turk in the Balkans began 
to disintegrate. Greece won independence in an eight-year 
war (1821-1828); and Roumania and Serbia were advanced to 
the position of merely tributary states, ruled thenceforth by 
their own princes. The Crimean War (1856), in which France 
and England attacked Russia, bolstered up the tottering Otto¬ 
man Empire for a time, but a great collapse came twenty years 
later. The Sultan had promised many reforms for his Christian 
subjects; but these promises bore no fruit, and in 1875-1876 
the Bosnians and Bulgarians rose for independence. There 
followed the horrible events long known as the “Bulgarian 
Atrocities. Turkish soldiers destroyed a hundred Bulgarian 
villages with every form of devilish torture imaginable, and 
massacred 30,000 people, carrying off also thousands of Christian 
girls into terrible slavery. Then Serbia sprang to arms; and 


TURKISH RULE DISINTEGRATES 


593 


Tsar Alexander II of Russia declared war on Turkey. The 
horror in Western Europe at the crimes of the Turk prevented 
for a time any interference; and in ten months the Russian ar¬ 
mies held the Turks at their mercy. The Peace of San Stefano 
(1878) arranged for a group of free Slav states in the peninsula 
and for the exclusion of Turkey from Europe except for the city 
of Constantinople. 

But now Europe intervened. Austria wanted a share of 
Balkan plunder, and England feared the advance of Russia 



The Congress of Berlin in 1878. Bismarck in the central foreground 
is clasping the hand of the Russian representative. Turkish and Bulga¬ 
rian representatives are indicated by their headgear. 


toward her communications with India; so the Peace of San 
Stefano was torn up. The Congress of Berlin (p. 458), domi¬ 
nated by Disraeli, the English Conservative, restored half the 
freed Christian populations to their old slavery under the Turk; 
handed over Bosnia to Austria to “administer” for Turkey, 
with a solemn provision that Austria should never annex the terri¬ 
tory to her own realms; and left the whole Balkan district in 
anarchy for a third of a century more. In fixing responsibility 
for the World War of 1914, this crime of 1878 cannot be over¬ 
looked. 


Russo- 
Turkish 
War of 1877 


Congress 
of Berlin, 
1878 








594 


THE BALKANS TO 1914 


Germany 
takes Eng¬ 
land’s place 
as friend of 
Turkey 


German and 
Austrian 
plans at one 


The 

“ Middle- 
Europe ” 
dream 


The English government was chiefly responsible for that crime, 
but the English people promptly repudiated it at the polls 
(p. 458). From this time England drew away from her old policy 
of courting Turkish friendship. Herein her place was quickly 
taken by Germany — with a shamelessness that has been partly 
told (pp. 521-2). 

In return, the Kaiser expected to make Turkey into a vassal 
state; and the prospect of German dominance in Asia Minor 
brought Germany and Austria into closer sympathy in their 
Balkan policies. Austria s interference in those regions had 
been purely bad, aiming to keep the little Balkan states weak 
and mutually hostile, and especially to prevent the growth of 
a Greater Serbia. Now (1898, 1899), Germany obtained con¬ 
cessions from Turkey for a railway from “Berlin to Bagdad,” 
to open up the fabulously rich Oriental trade. A powerful 
Serbia, through which that line must pass, might have hampered 
the project. Thenceforward Germany was ready to back 
Austria unreservedly in Balkan aggression. And in return, 
Austria permitted herself to sink virtually into a vassal of 
Germany in all other foreign relations. Such was the origin of 
the German dream of a “ Mittel-Europa ” empire, reaching across 
Europe from the North Sea to the Aegean and the Black seas, 
and on through Asia Minor to the Euphrates. 


ne U xesBos- In 1908 Came * Ste . P toWard fulfillin g plan. Taking ad- 
nia, 1908 vantage of internal dissensions in Turkey that followed the re¬ 
forms by the young Turks (p. 569), Austria formally annexed 
Bosnia, 111 flat contradiction to her solemn pledges. This was 
not only a brutal stroke at the sanctity of treaties, but it seemed 
also a fatal blow to any hope for a reunion of that Slav district 
with Serbia. Serbia protested earnestly, and was supported by 
Russia. But the Kaiser “took his stand in shining armor by 
the side of his ally,” as he himself put it; and Russia, still weak 
from her defeat by Japan and from her revolution of 1906, had 
to back down. Serbia was then forced by rough threats to make 
humiliating apologies to Austria — while at the same time an 



WARS OF 1912, 1913 


595 


Austrian embargo against Serbia’s pork closed to the chief 
Serbian industry its only outlet to world markets. 

Then came an event less favorable to the Teutonic designs. 
United action by the mutually hostile Balkan states had seemed 
impossible. But in 1912, the genius of Venizelos, prime min¬ 
ister of Greece, joined Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and 
Greece in a war to drive the Turk out of Europe. The 



' ■ 



20° Longitude East from 25° G reenwich 


1912 


1913 


The Balkan States 


allies won swift victories, and in a few months were almost 
at the gates of Constantinople. “Europe” intervened to ar¬ 
range the peace terms. Italy, like Austria, was hostile to a 
Greater Serbia; and at the insistence of these powers, backed 
by Germany, a new Kingdom of Albania was created, shutting 
off Serbia once more from the sea she had reached, while Monte¬ 
negro was forced, by threat of war, to give up to Albania Scutari, 
which she had conquered. Turkey was to surrender, mostly 


Balkan 
Wars of 
1912,1913 




























































































































596 


THE BALKANS TO 1914 


A seed bed 
for future 
wars 


New strides 
in mili¬ 
tarism 


to Bulgaria, her remaining territory in Europe except for Con¬ 
stantinople. Germany had carried her points in this settle¬ 
ment; but her ally, Turkey, had collapsed, and events were at 
once to show that in siding with Bulgaria she had blundered. 

The treaty left Bulgaria almost the only gainer. The cheated 
allies demanded that she now share her gains with them. She 
refused; and at once (June, 1913) followed “the Second Balkan 
War.” Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, and Roumania attacked 
Bulgaria. The Turks seized the chance to reoccupy Adrian- 
ople and were permitted to keep it. In a month Bulgaria was 
crushed, and a new division of booty was arranged. Greece 
won the richest prize, including the city of Saloniki; but each 
of the other allies secured gains. 

Roumania was now a half larger than any other Balkan state. 
Then came Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria, each with about four 
and a half million people. Montenegro had risen to a half million, 
while “Turkey in Europe” kept nearly two million. All these 
nations were frightfully illiterate, and all were poor. More¬ 
over they now hated one another with an intensified ferocity. 
Especially did Bulgar now hate Serb and Greek. Serbia, too, 
was still cheated of her proper desire for an outlet on the Adri¬ 
atic, her only natural gateway to the outside world, and she re¬ 
sented fiercely the Austrian and Italian policy which had so 
balked her, so that large secret societies grew up in Serbia, 
pledged to hostility to the odious and greedy northern neigh¬ 
bor who holds millions of Serb brothers in chains.” On her 
part, Austria felt deeply humiliated by the outcome of the 
Second Balkan War, and was planning to redress her loss of 
prestige by striking Serbia savagely on the first occasion. 

Then followed in 1913 a new and ominous stride in militarism. 
Inst Germany adopted a new army bill, to increase her armv 
in peace from 650,000 to 870,000. Three weeks later (July 20) 
France raised her term of active service from two years to three, 
and Austria and Russia at once took like measures. Each 
country of course found excuse for further efforts in like efforts 
5y its rivals. In paiticular, German and Austrian newspapers 


GERMANY WILLS IT 


597 


expressed frenzied alarm at the enormous increase proposed 
for the Russian army. 

II. GERMANY WILLS THE WAR 

One reason why the world drifted so complacently toward Drifting 
catastrophe was the general belief that, despite their armaments, 
the great “Christian" states were too good or at least too wise 
ever again to engage in war with one another merely for plunder 
— with the terrible ruin that such war must bring under modern 
conditions. And this belief was in itself a safeguard, in a rneas- 
ure> The catastrophe would at least have been postponed, 
except that one great nation did not share the faith in peace! 
or the desire for it. The willing hand to light the deadly fuse 
was Germany’s. 

For half a century Germany had been ruled by a Prussian Prussian 
despotism resting upon an old bigoted and arrogant oligarchy 
of birth, and a new, greedy, scheming oligarchy of money. That 
rule had conferred on Germany many benefits. It had cared for 
the people as zealously as the herdsman cares for the flocks 
he expects to shear. But in doing so it had amazingly trans¬ 
formed the old peace-loving, gentle German people. It had 
taught that docile race to bow to Authority rather than to Right; 
to believe Germany stronger, wiser, better, than “decaying" 
England, “decadent and licentious" France, “uncouth and 
anarchic" Russia, or “money-serving" America ; to be ready to 
accept a program, at the word of command, for imposing German 
Kultur upon the rest of the world by force; to regard war, even 
aggressive war, not as horrible and sinful, but as beautiful, 
desirable, and right, — the final measure of a nation’s worth, 
and the divinely appointed means for saving the world by Ger¬ 
man conquest; and finally to disregard ordinary morality, 
national or individual, whenever it might interfere with the 
victory of the “Fatherland." 

This diseased “patriotism" began with the war-gotten Em- “Outof 
pire. As early as 1872, Von Schellendorf, Prussian War-Minis- 
ter, wrote: — 


598 


THE WORLD WAR 


“Do not forget the civilizing task which Providence assigns 
us. Just as Prussia was destined to be the nucleus of Germany, 
so the new Germany shall be the nucleus of a future Empire 
of the West. . . . We will successively annex Denmark, Hol¬ 
land, Belgium, . . . and finally northern France. . . . No 
coalition of the world can stop us.” Leaders of German thought 
adopted this tone, until it dominated pulpit, press, university, 
and all society. Treitschke, a leading historian, could teach 
impiously: “War is part of the divinely appointed order. . . . 
War is both justifiable and moral, and the idea of perpetual 
peace is both impossible and immoral. . . . The salvation of 
Germany can be attained only by the annihilation of the smaller 
states.” The Kaiser had long been a noisy preacher of this 
evil doctrine. Said he (at Bremen, March 22, 1900): “We 
are the salt of the earth. . . . God has called us to civilize the 
world. . . . We are the missionaries of human progress.” 
School children had these ideas drilled into them. And Jung 
Deutschland, official organ of the Young German League (an 
organization corresponding in a rough way to our Boy Scouts), 
explained more specifically : “ War is the noblest and holiest ex¬ 
pression of human activity. For us, too, the glad, great hour 
of battle will strike. Still and deep in the German heart must 
live the joy of battle and the longing for it. Let us ridicule to 
the utmost the old women in breeches who fear war and deplore 
it as cruel and revolting. No; war is beautiful. Its august 
sublimity elevates the human heart beyond the earthly and the 
common. In the cloud palace above sit the heroes Frederick 
the Great and Bliicher; and all the men of action — the great 
Emperor, Moltke, Roon, Bismarck — are there as well, but 
not the old women who would take away our joy in war. 

That is the heaven of young Germany.” 

And so on, almost without end. It is no pleasant task now 
to recall how this monstrous ritual of a diseased patriotism was 
chanted so universally by the leaders of a great nation, to foment 
international envy and suspicion and war. Nor is it recorded 
here to throw discredit on the new Germany struggling, since 


GERMANY WILLS IT 


599 


the war, toward a better life. The story must be recorded, be¬ 
cause it carries a lesson for the world, a lesson for the conquerors 
of Germany “lest they forget,” — lest in the rebound from vic¬ 
torious war, they bow down in a like worship of violence before 
some misshapen idol of nationalism. 

True, even in that old Germany, a few lonely voices, mainly 
Socialists, protested against this doctrine of insolent and ruth¬ 
less Might. Indeed the bulk of the peasants and artisans wished 
not war but peace; but these were silent social forces, unorgan¬ 
ized and passive. And even these elements were deeply influ¬ 
enced by the persistent propaganda that England hated their 
country and was only waiting a chance to destroy it. Between 
1912 and 1914, to be sure, the German ambassador to England, 
Prince Lichnowsky, 1 repeatedly assured his government of Eng¬ 
land’s friendly and pacific feeling. But these communications, 
so out of tune with the purpose of the German government, 
never reached the German people. (It is to be added, too, that 
leaders of the Junker and of the capitalist class looked to foreign 
war as the only means of preserving their class rule at home 
against the rising tide of social reform.) 

As Bismarck prepared his “Trilogy of Wars,” many years 
before, in order to make Prussia mistress of Germany, so after 
1890, even more deliberately, the German war lords prepared 
vaster war to make Germany mistress of the world. They 
hoarded gold in the war chest; heaped up arms and munitions, 
and huge stocks of raw material, to manufacture more; secretly 
tried out new military inventions on a vast scale, — submarines, 
Zeppelins, poison gases, new explosives; created a navy in a 
race to best England’s; bound other ruling houses to their own 


Protests 
few and 
weak 


Germany’ 

prepared¬ 

ness 


1 This cultivated and able German Liberal, wholly free from the spirit 
of German jingoism, had been selected for the position apparently in order 
to blind English opinion as to Germany’s warlike aims. When the war 
came, he found himself in disgrace with the Kaiser and the German court; 
and at the opening of the second year of the war (August, 1916) he wrote an 
account of his London mission for private circulation among his friends, 
to justify himself in their eyes. A copy fell into the hands of the Allies 
during the next year, and became at once one of the most valuable proofs 
of the German guilt in forcing on the war. 


600 


THE WORLD WAR 


Why Ger¬ 
many did 
not fight 
sooner 


The Sera- 
jevo mur¬ 
ders, 

June 28, 
1914 


by marriage or by placing Hohenzollerns directly on the throne 
in Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Roumania; reorganized the 
Turkish Empire and filled offices in the army and navy there 
with Germans; permeated every great country, in the Old 
World and the New, with an insidious and treacherous system of 
spies in the guise of friendly business shielded by innocent hospi¬ 
tality , secured control of banking syndicates and of newspapers 
in foreign lands, especially in Italy and America, so as to in¬ 
fluence public opinion; and built a system of railroads, for 
military purposes, converging on the frontier of Belgium. 

In June, 1914, the Kiel Canal was finally opened to the pas¬ 
sage of the largest ships of war. Now Germany was r^ady, 
and her war lords were growing anxious to use their preparation 
before it grew stale — and before France and Russia, some¬ 
what alarmed now, should have time to put into effect their 
new army laws (p. 596). Moreover, Russia was distracted by 
violent strikes of revolutionary workingmen; France, by a 
tumultuous resistance to her new army law; and England, by 
an embryo civil war in Ireland (p. 482). 

Germany had seriously considered precipitating war on 
several recent occasions connected with colonial questions in 
Africa, but her leaders prudently 'preferred, a first war in which 
England would not be likely to join, so that the Teutonic em¬ 
pires might have only France and Russia to deal with at one 
time. In the Balkans, England had shown no selfish interest 
for many years, and it was easy to believe that she would not 
fight upon a Balkan question. 

And now came just the kind of occasion the German war¬ 
lords wished. Ever since its unjust seizure by Austria, Bosnia 
had been seething with conspiracies against Austrian rule. 
June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne, the Archduke 
Francis, and his wife were assassinated while in Bosnia by some 

of these conspirators — who, it is now known, included Serb 
officers. 

Europe was aghast. Horror at the dastardly murder was 
mingled with fear of a great European war. If Austria used 


GERMANY WILLS IT 


601 


this murder as an excuse to crush Serbia, Russia would surely 
defend that country. And a conflict between Austria and Russia 
could not but draw in at once Germany and France, and perhaps 
others. 

Austria had long looked upon her unruly little neighbor to 
the south very much as some Americans look upon Mexico. 
Now Austrian papers loudly declared Serbia responsible for the 
murder, inasmuch as she had not suppressed societies of con¬ 
spirators within her borders agitating for Bosnian liberation. 
But a month passed quietly before the Austrian government 
took open action. Then July 23, without warning, Austria 
launched her forty-eight hour ultimatum to Serbia — demands 
that would have degraded that country into a mere vassal state, 
and which, the minutes of the Austrian Cabinet show, were pur¬ 
posely made impossible of acceptance. The German government 
supported Austria “to the hilt,” as the Kaiser had promised be¬ 
forehand to do; and in twelve days a world-conflagration was 
ablaze. Two facts regarding the negotiations during those days 
are significant. 

1. Austria was entitled, in world opinion, to some sort of 
reparation from Serbia and to greater security for the future. 
Accordingly, England persuaded Serbia to offer humble sub¬ 
mission (reserving only her national independence), and then 
implored Germany to help get Austria’s consent to arbitrate 
the remaining points. Failing this, England pled, in vain, that 
Germany herself suggest some plan to preserve peace. Lich- 
nowsky (p. 599) believed that if his country had wished peace, 
a settlement could easily have been secured, and he “strongly 
backed” the English proposals; but in vain. “We insisted on 
war,” he says in his account to his friends; “the impression 
grew that we wanted war under any circumstances. It was 
impossible to interpret our attitude in any other way.” At the 
time, too, the German Socialist, Liebknecht, declared : “ The 
decision rests with William II. . . . But the war lords are at 
work . . . without a qualm of conscience ... to bring about 


The month 
of quiet 


Austria's 

ultimatum 


England’s 
efforts to 
keep the 
peace 


602 


THE WORLD WAR 


Germany 
wills war 


The first 
and treach¬ 
erous blow 


The German 
“ Hymn 
of Hate ” 


a monstrous world war, the devastation of Europe” ( Vorwdrts , 
July 30, 1914). 

2. The German government forced on the war (even when 
Austria for a moment showed hesitation) by a series of ultima¬ 
tums to Russia, France, and Belgium, each justified to the 
German people by glaring falsehoods — which, however, con¬ 
vinced them at the time that they must fight in self-defense. 


August 3, German troops invaded Belgium, as the easy road 
to Paris, despite the most solemn treaty obligations to respect 
the neutrality of that land. And the same day England “ went 
in,” as she had distinctly told Germany she would do if Bel¬ 
gium were attacked. 1 

This sadly upset German calculations. Chancellor Beth- 
mann-Holweg had believed that “shop-keeping” England would 
refuse to fight, and he expressed bitterly to the departing Eng¬ 
lish ambassador his amazement that England should enter the 
war “just for a scrap of paper.” The German government 
had blundered, and the irritating consciousness of a blunder 
called forth a frenzy of hate against England — whose over¬ 
throw in a later war, it was now openly avowed, was the real 
German goal. “God punish England” became the daily 
greeting among the German people. 

But, after all, Germany was prepared for war “to the last 
shoe-lace,” and her opponents were unprepared. Least of all 
was England ready. She had no army worth mentioning — 
only a few distant and scattered garrisons; and, worse still, 
she had no arms for her eager volunteers and no factories worth 

1 The English ministers had been claiming in Parliament and to foreign 
countries, that, so far as defending France was concerned, England was ab¬ 
solutely free to enter a war or not, according to her own judgment. Tech¬ 
nically this was true : England had not been formally bound to aid France. 
At the same time, some of these same ministers had secretly entered into 
such engagements with the French government (as to the disposition of the 
English fleet, for instance) that, when the crisis came, they must have felt 
bound in honor to join France. England, however, was exceedingly averse 
to war upon a “ continental matter ” ; and it is by no means sure that the 
ministry could have carried Parliament or the nation with them if Germany 
had kept out of Belgium. 



Ham in, 


Lof °de N/ . Qj 


Warsaw 
l An d 


'resdejj 


I)nie, 


n<;h°f X^—s.VIENNA 

/^STRlSX, 


GARY- 


'APEST 


^BYLVA.YIA. 


gevastoW 


lo «aco'i 


K 0 u 

,Danube 


Bosnia 


- ‘Na^CIU^ 1 
CeTINJE.®/’ 


e dalquir/i 7 . 


/PhiU^poP; 


Salonica p 


in 1914 


Smyrna 


ATHENS^ 


SCALE OF MILES 


m alta' q 

^• n uland) 


CYPRUS ( 

KnglanJ, 


L.l.POATES, ENSR , N.Y, 


Longitude 


Longitude West 0 


from Greenwich 
















































GERMANY WILLS IT 


603 


mention to make munitions. Both parties declared they 
fought to establish peace. But German leaders made it plain War aims 
that they looked only to a sort of peace by slavery , — a peace 
won by making Germany so supreme in the world that no other 
power could possibly dream of withstanding or disobeying her. 

Said Chancellor Bethmann-Holweg (May 28, 1915): “We must 
endure till we have gained every possible guarantee, so that 
none of our enemies — not alone, not united — will again dare 
a trial of strength with us.” Over against this ideal of a Roman 
peace, English statesmen set up the ideal of a peace of righteous¬ 
ness. Said Sir Edward Grey, the English Foreign Minister : — 

“ What we and our allies are fighting for is a free Europe. We 
want a Europe free, not only from the domination of one nation¬ 
ality by another, but from hectoring diplomacy and the peril 
of war, free from the constant ‘ rattling of the sword in the scab¬ 
bard/ from perpetual talk of ‘shining armor’ and war lords [pet 
phrases of the Kaiser]. We are fighting for equal rights; for 
law, justice, peace; for civilization throughout the world as 
against brute force.” 

And, with full allowance for rhetoric and for misrepresenta¬ 
tion, the difference was real. Even in England, to be sure, there 
had not been wanting in past years an occasional statesman 
or military leader to suggest, in private, an attack upon Ger¬ 
many’s fleet before it should grow too strong; and at times 
Russian and French statesmen had plotted for war. But in 
England and France any voice lifted openly for offensive war was 
drowned instantly in storms of indignant rebuke: Germany, 
on the other hand, led by its war-besotted prophets, had been 
making ready zealously and openly for wars of greed. 

For Further Reading. — Gibbons’ New Map of Europe , 1911- 
1914; Loreburn’s How the War Came; Rose’s Origin of the War; 

Spencer’s Our War with Germany; Carlton Haves 7 he Great War. 
Oppenheim’s novel, The Great Impersonation, brings in Lichnowsky 
(p. 599) prominently, under another name. 



The Ger¬ 
man plan 


Foiled by 
Belgium 


The battle 
of the 
Marne 


CHAPTER XLV 

THE WAR BEFORE AMERICA ENTERED 

THE FIRST YEAR, 1914 

The Germans had planned a short war. Thev expected 
(1) to go through Belgium swiftly with little opposition, and 
to take Paris within four weeks; (2) then to swing their 
strength against Russia before that unwieldy power could get 
into the war effectively, and crush her; and (3) with the 
Channel ports at command, to bring England easily to her 
knees, if she should really enter the war. 

Thanks to Belgium, the first of these expectations fell through 
and the others fell with it. The Germans had allowed six 
days to march through Belgium. But for sixteen days little 
Belgium, alone in her agony, under the command of her hero 
king, Albert, held back mighty Germany. When the French 
began mobilization, after August 2, they began it to meet an 
honest attack through Lorraine; but before the Belgians were 
quite crushed, the French managed to shift enough force to 
the north, along with a hurried and poorly equipped “Ex¬ 
peditionary Army” of 100,000 from England, to delay the 
German advance through northern France for three weeks 
more ground that the German plan had allowed eight da vs 
to win. Tremendously outnumbered, outflanked, trampled 
into the dust in a ceaseless series of desperate battles, the thin 
lines of Allied survivors fell back doggedly toward the Marne. 

There, September G, when the boastful invaders were in sight 
of the towers of Paris, the French and English turned at bay 
in a colossal battle along a two-hundred-mile front. Joffre, 
the French commander-in-chief, issued to all corps commanders 
his famous order: “ The hour has come to let yourselves be 
killed rather than to yield ground.” The crisis came on the 
fourth day when the Germans, anxious to use their superior 


BATTLE OF THE MARNE 


605 



numbers in an enveloping movement around both the Allied 
wings, had perilously weakened their center. With true mili¬ 
tary genius, General Foch, a trusted lieutenant of Joffre’s, di¬ 
vined the situation, and, with splendid resolution, hurled his 
exhausted troops desperately at that key-position. Joffre 
had sent an anxious inquiry to ask Foch’s condition. The 
dogged Foch telegraphed back hastily: “My right is beaten 
back ; my center is 


crushed; my left has 
been repulsed. Situation 
excellent. I am attack¬ 
ing with my left.” And 
when a subordinate re¬ 
ported, “ My men are 
exhausted,” Foch replied 
curtly, “ So are the enemy. 

Attack !” This time, the 
attack broke the invad¬ 
er’s line. 

To save themselves 
from destruction, the 
Germans retreated hastily 
to the line of the Aisne 
(map facing 633). There 
they entrenched them¬ 
selves along a range of 
hills running northwest¬ 
erly from Rheims, and the Allies were too exhausted to dis¬ 
lodge them. On the East front, the Russians had mobilized The East 
more swiftly than friend or foe had believed possible, and were 


Copyright by Underwood and Underwood. 
Ferdinand Foch. 


swarming into East Prussia, threatening Austria. August 26 
they were defeated ruinously at Tannenberg by Hindenburg, 1 
a Prussian veteran of 1870, with the most fearful slaughter 
ever known in one battle in all history; but against the 


front in 
1914 


1 Aided, Ludendorf’s Story of the War now shows us, by the treason of a 
Russian general. 







606 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1914 


England’s 

navy 


Germany 
turns back 
to the West 
front 


< 


Austrians they fared better. After winning a great battle 
on the frontier, they forced their way into Austrian Galicia 
and captured Lemberg. Germany was forced to divert troops 
from France to succor her Austrian ally, and, even so, the 
Russians held their positions for the rest of the 1914 campaign. 

Through 1914, the West remained the real center of interest. 
The Battle of the Marne had wrecked the original plan of the 
invaders. Then the overwhelming British seapower began to 
count. In August and September, German shipping was swept 
from the seas, and the German war navy was bottled up in the 
Baltic, while America’s resources in food and munitions were 
kept available only for the Allies. England established a vir¬ 
tual blockade of the North Sea, requiring all neutral ships from 
the outside world to submit to inspection at the Orkneys, to 
see that (even though bound for Holland or Scandinavia) they 
did not carry contraband really designed for Germany. Early 
in the war, too, Germany had declared a government control 
over all food in the country, to make sure of proper supplies for 
the army. Then England added food destined for Germany to 
the list of contraband. At first this blockade was not enforced 
rigidly., for fear of offending American opinion ; but at once the 
Germans raised loud outcry against the “.inhumanity” of thus 
“starving a nation.” Certainly, if the war were to be a long 
one, a successful strangling of German commerce would be de¬ 
cisive. Accordingly, the German government realized the need 

of attacking England directly, without waiting to conquer 
France. 

As a necessary step, the Germans turned to complete their 
conquest of the Belgian coast. King Albert of Belgium and 
the bulk of his heroic little army were still holding Antwerp. 
The huge German siege guns now beat to powder the protect¬ 
ing forts, and the invaders captured that city on October 9,_ 

though in their exulting parade they foolishly permitted the 
Belgian army to escape towards France. Immediately after, 

they secured the port of Ostend and most of the rest of the 
Belgian coast. 


THE YSER AND YPRES 


607 


To attack England successfully, however, against her un¬ 
conquerable fleet, Germany needed better and nearer ports for 
a base, — at least Dunkirk and Calais; and October 16 they 
began the four weeks’ Battle of the Yser in order to force the 
last natural barrier protecting those Channel ports. Checked 
by the cutting of the dykes, they next brought their force against 
the thin English lines near Ypres. The gallant resistance 
offered the magnificent “Prussian Guards” in the First Battle 
of Ypres by the outnumbered and ill-armed English makes 
one of the most heroic stories in all history. In vain, day 
after day for a long month, with slight intervals for prepara¬ 
tion, did the overwhelming German forces deliver their reck¬ 
less mass attacks upon the opponents whom they had styled 
“a contemptible little army.” They wore themselves down 
upon that dying but unconquered line without ever becoming 
able to deliver a knock-out blow, losing more men than the 
total English force; and winter conditions set in, November 17, 
with the desired ports still in the hands of the Allies. 

Thus closed the first war-season. On the west, both sides 
had “dug in” along a 360-mile front from the North Sea to 
Switzerland. Now began a trench warfare, new in history. In 
spite of constant and horrible slaughter, the positions were 
not materially changed on this front until the final months, 
four years later. 

While England’s gallant first army died devotedly to gain her 
time, England reorganized herself for war — built new muni¬ 
tion factories — though for a long time not enough; poured 
forth gold lavishly for Russia and France; saved and toiled and 
drilled at home, and put into the field eventually a splendid 
fighting force of six million men, — a million ready for the second 
year. 

Further, England’s distant daughter-commonwealths, — 
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and even her 
Indian empire, — were rousing themselves splendidly to the 
defense of their common civilization. And Japan, England’s 
ally in the Orient, had entered the war, to aggrandize herself by 


But fails at 
the Yser and 
at Ypres 


Close of 
the 

first season 


The war 
spreads 


608 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1915 


The danger 
of Russian 
collapse 


Necessity 
that the 
Allies se¬ 
cure the 
Dardanelles 


The attempt 
and failure 


seizing Germany’s holdings in China and in the northern Pacific. 
On the other hand, in November, Turkey joined the Teutonic 
powers. 


THE SECOND YEAR, 1915 

At the opening of 1915, England and France believed, with 
silly optimism, that the Russian “steam-roller,” fully pre¬ 
pared, would now crush its way to Berlin. But Russia was 
near the end of her supply of munitions, and her industries were 
too primitive to cope with longer war. The minister of war, too, 
had secretly sold himself to Germany, and was doing his best 
to hinder military movements and to waste and misdirect the 
scanty supplies. 1 Similar treason permeated a large part of 
the official classes and of the court circle, centering around the 
Hohenzollern wife of the Tsar. The Germans understood this 
situation and planned now to concentrate their energies in 
putting Russia quickly out of the war. 

Russia was almost isolated from the other Allies. If she 
were to receive badly needed supplies, the Allies must force 
the Dardanelles and capture Constantinople. Success in this 
project in 191o would have ended the war. The wavering 
Balkan states would have joined Russia; Turkey would have 
been crushed; the ill-cemented Austrian Empire would have 

been open to invasion from the south; and the Allies must 
have won. 

Thus both parties planned now to transfer the decisive strug¬ 
gle to the East front. In February, the Allied navy attacked 
the Dardanelles. The outer forts were taken or battered down, 
but the inner fortresses resisted successfully. In March a 
more formidable attack all but succeeded. Had the Allies 
known how exhausted the Turkish ammunition was, they might 
have opened the straits. Not informed of this, however, and 
discouraged by heavy losses in ships, the navy now waited 

1 Two years later this man was executed for high treason. Of Russia’s 

four important munition factories, the largest was directly controlled 
secretly, by Germany. ’ 


ON THE EAST FRONT 


609 


nearly two months for the arrival of land forces. When the 
British transports from Australia arrived, late in April, the 
Turks were perfectly prepared; and the heroic attempts of 
the Anzacs 1 to storm the fortresses of the Gallipoli Peninsula 
failed after horrible slaughter. 

Meantime, in May, the Germans opened their drive against The Ger- 
Russia in Galicia with the first enormous concentration of maadrive 
artillery in the war. The Russians were admirably com- Russia 
manded in the field, and they fought, as always, with reckless 
valor. But their cannon were useless from want of ammu¬ 
nition, and even with the infantry many a soldier had to 
wait until a comrade had fallen before he could get a gun 
to fight with. The Austrians recaptured Lemberg in June, 
and the Germans took Warsaw early in August. The Teutonic 
armies then cleared most of eastern Poland of Russian garrisons, 
before they halted their drive late in September, in order to 
attempt a more important drive on the southeast (below). 

Russia had lost an enormous number of lives, with a million 
and a half of prisoners; she had been driven out of a huge 
territory; and her offensive power had been destroyed for 
months to come. 

On the West front, there was continuous trench fighting, with Trench war 
much loss of life, but the only important event of the year was on the Wes 
the German offensive at Ypres (Second Battle of Ypres, April 17- 
May 17) where the English line was almost broken by the Ger¬ 
man asphyxiating gas, then first used in war. That the line 
held against this attack was due largely to the splendid gallantry 
of the new Canadian divisions. Lack of high explosives kept • 
the Allies from attempting a serious offensive until just before 
the season closed — in September — and the event proved 
that the supplies even then were insufficient to prepare the way 
for successful infantry attack, so that the only result was one 
more terrible lesson with pitiful sacrifice of lives. 

The Germans had stopped their triumphant progress into 
Russia only to avail themselves of a more attractive program. 

1 Australian New Zealand Auxiliary Corps. 


610 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1915 


Bulgaria 
joins the 
Central 
Empires 


Serbia is 
crushed 


Italy joins 
the Allies 


In October, Bulgaria finally joined the Central Powers (fear 
of Russia gone), hoping to wreak vengeance on Serbia for 
1913 and to make herself the ruling state in the Balkans. Her 
secretly prepared army invaded Serbia from the east while a 
huge Teutonic force attacked from the north. Serbia had 
counted upon her treaty of 1913 with Greece for protection 
against possible Bulgarian attack. But King Constantine of 
Greece, brother-in-law of the German Kaiser, now repudiated 
that treaty and dismissed his prime minister, Venizelos, who 
desired to keep Greece faithful to her ally. A Franco-British 
army had been sent to Saloniki, but, after the defection of 
Greece, it could accomplish nothing. Serbia was overwhelmed, 
and along with Montenegro and much of Albania, was occupied 
by the Bulgars and Teutons; and the Bulgarian atrocities 
toward the conquered populations during the next years ex¬ 
ceeded anything those unhappy peoples had ever suffered from 
the Turk. 

The military gain by Germany in this campaign was im¬ 
mense. She now dominated a solid broad belt of territory 
from Berlin and Brussels and Warsaw to Bagdad and 
Persia. The “ Mittel-Europa ” dream (p. 610) seemed to have 
become fact. True, Germany had begun to feel the English 
blockade terribly. Her stocks of fats, rubber, cotton, and 
copper were running low, and her poorer classes were suffer¬ 
ing from underfeeding — with a horrible increase in the infant 
death rate. But the ruling classes felt no pinch, and looked hope¬ 
fully now to the control of the East for new sources of trade. 

* 

This gloomy second year of the war brought to the Allies 
only one gain. From the outset, Italy had repudiated the 
Triple Alliance. The Teutonic powers, who had forced on 
the war without consulting her, had expected only that she 
would remain neutral. But the Italian government saw its 
opportunity to recover the “ unredeemed ” Italian territory 
— and more —by joining one side or the other. When the 
Teutonic powers had refused its terms, it drove a hard bargain 


KINGDOM OF 








































World War Scenes. 


Above. — French Infantry in Action near Lorette The 
shows a German shell bursting near the trench 
Below. —A French Dugout. The photo (taken by flashlight) 
exhausted soldiers sleeping, while one, on watch, is writing home. 


photo 

shows 






NEW WAYS OF FIGHTING 


611 


with the Allied governments, securing in a secret treaty (since 
known as the Pact of London, April, 1915) promises for 
not only Trieste and the Trentino but also for Dalmatia — at 
the expense of martyred Serbia — and for various islands in the 
iEgean. Accordingly, just when the Russian retreat was be¬ 
ginning, Italy declared war on Austria, and launched her armies 
in a drive across the Isonzo for Trieste. But the Austrians 
had fortified the Alpine passes with every modern device, and 
for two years the Italians made little advance. They did, 
however, keep large Austrian forces busy, and so lessen the 
pressure upon the Allies elsewhere. 

From the first the warfare in the field was marked by new and 
ever more terrible ways of fighting, with increasing ferocity and 
horror from month to month. Ordinary cannon were replaced 
by huge new guns whose high explosives blasted the whole land¬ 
scape into indescribable and irretrievable ruin — burying entire 
battalions alive, and forming great craters where snipers found 
the best shelter in future advances. Ordinary defense works 
were elaborated into many lines of connected trenches, protected 
by mazy entanglements of barbed wire and strengthened at 
intervals by bomb-proof “dugouts” and underground chambers 
of heavy timbers and cement. To plow through these in- 
trenchments, cavalry gave way to monstrous, heavily armored 
motor-tanks. New guns belched deadly poison gases, slaying 
whole regiments in horrible strangling torture when the Germans 
first used this devilish device, in April, 1915, — until English 
and French chemists invented gas masks that afforded fair 
protection if donned in time — and infernal “ flame-throwers ” 
wrapped whole ranks in liquid fire. Scouting was done, 
and gunfire directed, by airplanes equipped with new appa¬ 
ratus for wireless telegraphy and for photography; and 
daily these aerial scouts, singly or in fleets, met in deadly com¬ 
bat ten thousand feet above the ground, — combat that ended 
only when one or both went hurtling down in flames to crashing 
destruction. Worse than these terrors even, the soldiers 


New 

methods 

of 

warfare 


612 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1915 


Germany's 
“ Frightful¬ 
ness ” 


“ Huns ” 


dreaded the beastly filthiness of trench war; the never absent 
smell of rotting human flesh ; the torture of vermin; the dreary 
monotony. 

From the first, one phase of the war had compelled the 
attention of the world outside Europe. This was the policy 
of Frightfulness, deliberately adopted by the German High 
Command. For centuries, international law had been building 
up rules of “civilized” war, so as to protect non-combatants 
and to preserve some shreds of humanity among even the 
fighters. But German military rulers, for some years, had 
referred slurringly to such “ moderation ” as a deceitful attempt 
on the part of the weak to protect themselves against the strong. 
Humane considerations the official German War Manual re¬ 
ferred to as flabby sentimentality. 1 

The first practical application of this German doctrine of 
Frightfulness had been given to the world in 1900. In that 
year a force of German soldiers set out to join forces from other 
European countries and from the United States in restoring 
order in China, after the massacre of Europeans there in the 
Boxer Rebellion. July 27 the Kaiser bade his troops farewell 
at Bremerhaven in a set address. In the course of that brutal 
speech he commanded them : “ Show no mercy! . . . As the 
Huns made a name for themselves which is still mighty in 
tradition, so may you by your deeds so fix the name of German 
in China that no Chinese shall ever again dare to look at a 
German askance. . . . Open the way for Kultur.” 

At the opening of the World War, the new German policy was 
put into effect in Western Europe. Belgium and northeastern 
France were purposely devastated — not by the passionate 
fury of brutalized soldiers, but by deliberate order of polished, 
soft-living “gentlemen,” just to break the morale of the enemy, 
to make it easier to hold conquered territory with small forces, 

1 Wild stories of individual crime by German soldiers upon prisoners 
and non-combatants were widely believed in Allied lands during the war. 
It is a relief to be assured now by the excellent authority of Sir Philip Gibbs, 
a famous English war correspondent, that such stories are essentially with¬ 
out foundation. See Gibbs’ Now It Can Be Told. 



Rheims Cathedral, as it was before the Germans bombarded it. (See 
over.) This supremely beautiful example of Gothic architecture 
dates back almost to the year 1200. 
































Rheims Cathedral at 6 : 30 a. m., after a wanton night bombardment by the Germans. The mutilation of this 

famous structure served no military purpose. 









german frightfulness 


613 


and to intimidate neighboring small peoples — Danes and 
Dutch. So, too, Zeppelins raided England, not mainly to de¬ 
stroy military depots but to drop bombs upon peaceful resident 
districts, murdering thousands of women and children before 
the Allies adopted retaliation in kind . 1 And soon German 
airplanes in France bombed hospitals and Red Cross trains, 
assassinating doctors and nurses along with the wounded sol¬ 
diers, and German submarines began even to torpedo hospital 
ships — on suspicion, perhaps, that such trains and ships car¬ 
ried munitions. Nor is it easy to find any imaginable crime 
against the war customs of civilized nations 2 that was not 
committed and boasted of by Germany within a few months 
after this war began. No wonder that even neutral lands be¬ 
gan to know the German soldier no longer as the kindly “ Fritz ” 
but only as “Hun.” 

AMERICAN NEUTRALITY 

To ine United States , even more than to France or England, America’s 
the war had come as a surprise; and for some time its purposes 1 ® nga ^®“£ t 
and its origin were obscured by a skillful German propaganda in 
the American press. President Wilson issued the usual proc¬ 
lamation of neutrality, and followed this with unusual and 
solemn appeals to the American people for a real neutrality 
of feeling. For two years the administration clung to this 
policy. Any other course was made difficult for the President 
by the fact that many members of Congress were either pro- 
German or bitterly anti-English, or extreme pacifists. More¬ 
over the President seems to have hoped that if the United 

1 English engineers soon developed anti-aircraft guns whose range and 
accuracy made these air raids extremely hazardous. In the latter part of the 
war, when they were undertaken at all, smaller aircraft replaced the costly 
and slow-moving Zeppelins. 

2 Later, peaceful Belgian workmen were enslaved on a large scale, and 
deported into Germany, where by cruel punishments they were forced to 
labor in war industries to aid the enemy of their country, and to release 
German man power for the army. It seems established, too, that the Ger¬ 
man government deliberately destroyed Belgian and French factories or fac¬ 
tory machinery, in order to wipe out certain industries and leave their districts 
economically dependent upon Germany even after the war should be over. 


614 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1915 


Forces for 
and against 
neutrality 


States could keep apart from the struggle, it might, at the close, 
render mighty service in establishing a lasting world peace. 

True, the best informed men and women saw at once that 
France and England were waging America’s war against a 
militaristic despotism; and tens of thousands of young Ameri¬ 
cans, largely college men, made their way to the fighting line as 
volunteers, in the Canadian regiments, in the French “ Foreign 
Legion,” or in the “air service.” But to other millions — 
long a majority — the dominant feeling was a deep thankful¬ 
ness that their sons were safe from slaughter, their homes free 
from the horror of war. Nor was this attitude as strange or 
as grossly selfish then as it seems now. Vast portions of the 
American people had neither cared nor known about the facts 
back of the war: to such, that mighty struggle was merely 
“a bloody European squabble,” and even the better informed 
found it not altogether easy to break with a century-long tradi¬ 
tion of a happy aloofness from all Old-World quarrels. 

Some leaders, too, in all the great reform movements believed 
that in any war the attention of the nation would be diverted 
from the pressing need of progress at home, and failed to see 
that German militarism and despotism had suddenly towered 
into the one supreme peril to American life. And then, cheek 
by jowl with this misled idealism, there flaunted itself a coarse 
pro-German sentiment wholly un-American. Sons and grand¬ 
sons of men who had fled from Germany to escape despotism 
were heard now as apologists for the most dangerous despotism 
and the most barbarous war methods the modern world had 
ever seen. Organized and obedient to the word of command, 
this element made many weak politicians truckle to the fear of 
“the German vote.” 

Moreover, the country had begun to feel a vast business 
prosperity. The European belligerents were clamoring to 
buy all America s spare products at any price — munitions 
of war, food, clothing, raw materials. To be sure, the English 
navy soon shut out Germany from direct trade, though she 
long continued an eager customer, indirectly, through Holland 


AMERICAN NEUTRALITY 


615 


and Denmark; but in any case the Allies called ceaselessly 
for . more than America could produce. Non-employment 
vanished ; wages rose by bounds; new fortunes piled up as by 
Aladdin s magic. A busy people, growing richer and busier 
day by day, ill-informed about the real causes of the war, needed 
some mighty incentive to turn it from the easy, peaceful road of 
prosperous industry into the stern, rugged paths of self-denial 
and war —even though certain huge financial interests may 
secretly have intrigued for war, to make safe their investments 
in French and English bonds. A little wisdom, and Germany 
might readily have held us bound to neutrality in acts at least, 
if not always in feeling. 

But more and more Germany made neutrality impossible. From 
the first the German government actively stirred up bad feeling 
toward America among its own people because Americans 
used the usual and legal rights of citizens of a neutral power 
to sell munitions of war to the belligerents. Germany had 
securely supplied herself in advance, and England , s navy now 
shut her out from the trade in any case. So she tried, first 
by cajolery and then by threats, to keep America from selling 
to her enemies which would have left them at her mercy, 
taken by surprise and unprepared as they were. 

The legal right of a neutral to sell munitions she could not 
question seriously. She demanded of us not that we comply 
with international law, but that we change it in such a way as 
to insure her victory — in such a way as would really have 
made us her ally. For the American government to have for¬ 
bidden trade in munitions during the war, would have been 
not neutrality, but a direct and deadly act of war against the 
Allies. Worse still, it would have fastened militarism upon 
the world directly. For neutrals to renounce trade in munitions 
(until all such trade is controlled by a world federation) would 
be at once to hand the world over to the nation with the largest 
armaments and munition factories. Very properly the Ameri¬ 
can government refused firmly to notice these arrogant de¬ 
mands. 


Germany 
makes neu¬ 
trality im¬ 
possible 


Quarrel 
over muni¬ 
tions 


616 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1915 


The sub¬ 
marine con 
troversy in 
its early 
stages 


Moreover, one phase of German Frightfulness came home 
especially to America. This was a new and barbarous sub¬ 
marine warfare, with invasion of neutral rights and murder of 
neutral lives. The U-craft were not very dangerous to warships 
when such vessels were on their guard. Unarmed merchantmen 
they could destroy almost at will. But if a U-boat summoned a 



Copyright by Underwood and Underwood. 
A German Submarine on the way to surrender at the end of the war. This 
light WaS taken fr0m an English airplane at night with the aid of a search- 

merchantman to surrender, the merchantman might possibly 
sink the submarine by one shot from a concealed gun, and in 
any case the U-boat had little room for prisoners. Submarine 
warfare upon merchant ships is necessarily barbarous and in 
conflict with all the principles of international law. If it is 
to be efficient, the U-boat must sink without warning. In 
the American Civil War when the Confederate Alabama de¬ 
stroyed hundreds of Northern merchant ships, it scrupulously 
cared for the safety of the crews and passengers. But from 
the first the German submarines torpedoed English and French 







SUBMARINE WARFARE 


617 


peaceful merchant ships without notice, so that little chance 
was given even for women and children to get into the lifeboats. 
Then the second year of the war saw a sudden expansion of this 
horrible form of murder. 

In February of 1915 Germany proclaimed a “submarine 
blockade” of the British Isles. She drew a broad zone in the 
high seas about Britain, declaring that any merchant ship, 
even of a neutral nation, within those waters was liable to be 
sunk without warning. 

The world could not believe that Germany would really 
practice the crime she threatened. But May 7, 1915, the great 
English liner Lusitania , bound from New York to Liverpool, 
was torpedoed without any attempt to save life. Nearly twelve 
hundred non-combatants were drowned, many of them women 
and children! 

One hundred and fourteen of the murdered passengers were 
American citizens; and there at once went up from much of 
America a fierce cry for war; but large parts of the country, 
remote from the seaboard, were still indifferent to a “European 
struggle,” and there were not lacking some shameless apologists 
for even this dastardly massacre. President Wilson, zealous to 
preserve peace, used every resource of diplomacy to induce 
Germany to give up its horrible submarine policy, — pointing 
out distinctly, at the same time, in a series of “ Lusitania Notes” 
that persistence in that policy would force America to fight. 
The German government answered with quibbles, cynical 
falsehoods, and contemptuous neglect. Other merchant vessels 
were sunk, and finally (March, 1916) the sinking of the Sussex , 
an English passenger ship, again involved the murder of Ameri¬ 
can citizens. President Wilson’s note to Germany took a still 
sterner tone and specifically declared that one more such act 
would cause him to break off diplomatic relations. Germany 
now seemed to give way. She promised, grudgingly and with 
loopholes for future use, to sink no more passenger or merchant 
ships — unless they should attempt to escape capture — with¬ 
out providing for the safety of passengers and crews (May 4). 


The new 
phase in 
ISI5 . 


The Lusi¬ 
tania 


President 
Wilson’s 
“ notes ” 


Wilson’s 

seeming 

victory. 


618 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1916 


England 

fully 

aroused 


The German 
Crown 
Prince at¬ 
tacks 
Verdun 


This episode, running over into the third year, closed the first 
stage of this controversy. President Wilson seemed to have 
won a victory for civilization. As he afterward complained, 
the precautions taken by the Germans to save neutrals and 
non-combatants proved distressingly meager,” but for some 
time “a certain degree of restraint was observed.” 

THE THIRD YEAR, 1916 

The year 1916 brought the struggle for a time back to the 
Western fiont. England had awakened from her complacency 
and was at last putting forth her full strength. The splendid 
volunteer army was now supplemented by conscription, wholly 
new to England, and the “work or fight” rule was applied to 
every able-bodied man between 18 and 45. The first com¬ 
mander-in-chief, General French, a veteran of the Boer War, 
had shown no marked ability, and in some circles was sus¬ 
pected of sloth. He had now been succeeded by a younger man, 

Sir Douglas Haig. Haig would be ready to strike by mid¬ 
summer. 

Accordingly Germany planned to strike first and to put 
France out before Britain was ready. February 21, weeks before 
campaigns would usually open in that region, she made a 
gigantic effort to deal a mortal blow by an attack on Verdun. 
The capture of that famous fortress, it was felt, would open the 
road to Paris. Certainly it would have been a terrific shock 
to the French morale. 

For four days the Germans gained ground swiftly. A vast 
concentration of artillery prepared the way for each assault, 
and then huge masses of trained soldiery carried their objec¬ 
tives each day, — though with almost incredible losses. But 
France rushed in her reserves by thousands in motor busses, 
and after February 25 her defense steadily tightened, meeting 
the haughty German boasts with the tight-lipped defiance — 
“They shall not pass.” For months more the Germans kept 
up the attack, at a staggering cost of life, after all real chance of 
success was gone. Germany now put Hindenburg, the victor 





■dm 




\ I I 


#11 






• ■ 

M MWMte K J§ 

■ S * 11 
























VERDUN AND THE SOMME 619 

in the East, in supreme command of all her armies — with 
Ludendorff, Chief of Staff, as the real pdwer behind him; and 
these officers established their headquarters on the West front. 

July 1 the new British armies began their carefully prepared 
drive along the Somme. Lloyd George himself had taken over 
the ministry of munitions some months before ; and this time — 
for the first time during the war — the English had a superiority 
in guns and high explo¬ 
sives, while their tanks, 
now used first, wrought 
terrible havoc in the Ger¬ 
man lines. But the in¬ 
tended French drive, fur¬ 
ther south, did not come 
to a head — partly be¬ 
cause of exhaustion from 
the Verdun campaign, 
partly, it was whispered, 
because at this moment 
the French legislative 
chamber, having already 
driven Joffre into retire¬ 
ment, saw fit again 
to interfere disastrously 
with the plans of the 
military staff. The Eng¬ 
lish struggled on mag¬ 
nificently for four months, winning back a considerable extent 
of French soil, with many villages, and driving a deep dent 
into the German line. But that line was still unbroken when 
the unusually severe weather of November brought the cam¬ 
paign to a close. Two hundred thousand young Englishmen 
had given their lives, and six hundred thousand more lay man¬ 
gled in hospitals,— to prove that democratic England in two 
years had created and trained an army more than a match, 
unit for unit, for the veteran army of militaristic Germany. 



Copyright by Underwood and Underwood. 

Field Marshal Haig. 


The British 
advance on 
the Somme 


* -4 





620 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1916 


Brief Rus¬ 
sian re¬ 
vival 


Roumania 
enters the 
war — and 
is betrayed 
by Russia 


Conditions 
at the close 
of 1916 


The war on the East front during this season furnished two 
surprises on the side of the Allies, but neither was of lasting 
value. (1) Russia showed a remarkable recovery. Early in 
June bet armies took the offensive against the Austrians. For 
a month they won swift success — in great part because their 
opponents were largely subject Czechoslavs, who welcomed 
chances to suirender to a possible deliverer of their provinces 
from Austrian oppression. By July, however, the new supplies 
of Russian ammunition had again given out, and Germanv had 
rushed to Austria s rescue a number of veteran divisions from 
the West front. Russia was crumbling. The traitorous court 
party, with its pro-German sympathies, was working for a 
sepai ate peace. Indeed, only the stubborn resistance of the 
Duma and of a few great generals prevented this result. Even so, 
Russia would probably have been put out of the war by con¬ 
quest in the field, if the Teutonic powers had not been diverted 
(as in the preceding year) to a more tempting prize. 

( w ) Dor now Roumania had entered the w r ar to recover from 
Austria the great Roumanian province of Transylvania. The 
Russian government had induced her to go in too soon by 
promises of support that was never given. Bulgarians and 
Teutons entered doomed Roumania from south and west. 
December 16 the capital fell, and only the rigors of winter 
enabled the Roumanian army to keep a hold upon a narrow 
strip of its country. The Allied army at Saloniki did not stir, 
because, if it left its base, it was in peril of being stabbed in 
the back by Constantine of Greece; and the Tsar vetoed all 

proposals of effective measures against that petty despot_ 

from tenderness for a fellow monarch. 

Thus the year 1916, too, ended gloomily. Germany had 
lost nothing in the West, and had tremendously strengthened 
her hold in the East, with the gain, too, of Roumanian oil fields 
to counteract fully one of the most pressing features of the 
blockade. On the other hand, England and France were about 
ready for their maximum effort. And there were not wanting 
signs that they were soon to receive a mighty reinforcement. 


CHAPTER XLVI 


THE WAR AFTER AMERICA JOINED 

If we divide the war into two great periods, the demarcation 
is found, in the spring of 1917, in the falling away of Russia 
and in the entrance of America. 

AMERICA ENTERS AND THE WAR SPREADS 

In America, Woodrow Wilson had been reelected President 
in November, 1916, after a peculiar campaign, in which neither 
party made the war a real issue. Many of Wilson’s followers, 
especially in the West and among the workingmen, shouted 
the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” On the other hand, his 
firmness in defending American rights, and his plain drift toward 
the Allies, drew upon him the hatred of large organized pro- 
German elements. But no sooner had the dust of this political 
campaign cleared away than the American people began to 
find indisputable proofs of new treacheries and new attacks 
by Germany, even within American borders. The official repre¬ 
sentatives of Germany in the United States, protected by their 
diplomatic position (and bound by every sort of international 
law and common decency not to interfere in any manner with 
domestic affairs), had placed their hirelings as spies and plotters 
throughout the land. They had used German money, with 
the approval of the German government, to bribe American 
officials and even to try to “influence” Congress. They had 
paid public speakers to foment distrust and hatred toward the 
Allies. They had hired agitators to stir up strikes and riots 
in order to paralyze industries. Each week brought fresh 
proof of such outrage — more and more frequently, formal 
proof in the courts — and finally President Wilson dismissed 
the Austrian ambassador (who had been directly implicated) 
and various guilty officers connected with the German embassy. 

621 


Woodrow 
Wilson’s re- 
election in 
1916 


German 
plots against 
neutral 
America 


622 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1917 


German 
threats and 
hostility 


America 
forced to 
choose be¬ 
tween tem¬ 
porary war 
and per¬ 
manent 
militarism 


Wilson’s 
final at¬ 
tempts for 
peace 


Germany 
resumes 
“ unre¬ 
stricted ” 
submarine 
warfare 


The United 
States 
breaks off 
diplomatic 
relations 


All this turned our attention more and more to the hostility 
to America plainly avowed for years by German leaders. Said 
the Kaiser himself to the American ambassador (October 22, 
1915), “America had better look out. ... I shall stand no 
nonsense from America after this war .” Other representative 
Germans threatened more specifically that when England had 
been conquered, Germany, unable to indemnify herself in 
exhausted Europe for her terrible expenses, would take that 
indemnity from the rich and unwarlike United States. It 
came home to us that our fancied security — unprepared for 
war as we were — was due only to the protecting shield of Eng¬ 
land’s fleet. If Germany came out victor from the European 
struggle, we must give up forever our unmilitaristic life, and 
turn our country permanently into a huge camp, on a European 
model, as our only chance for safety from invasion and rapine — 
and there was much doubt whether time would be given to form 
such a camp. German despotism and peace for free peoples 
could not exist in the same world. President Wilson strove still 
to avoid war. At the same time he had begun to speak solemn 
warnings that America could not keep out of the struggle, or 
out of some like struggle, unless peace could be secured soon 
and upon a just basis. 

Germany now had ready a new fleet of enlarged submarines, 
and she was about to resume her barbarous warfare upon neu¬ 
trals. She thought this might join the United States to her 
foes; but she held that country impotent in war, and believed 
she could keep it busied at home. To this last end, through 
her ambassador at Washington — while he was still enjoying 
American hospitality — she had been preparing secretly, as we 
learned a little later, to get Mexico and Japan to join in an 
attack upon the United States, promising them huge portions 
of our western territory. January 31, the German government 
gave a two weeks’ notice that it was to renew its “unrestricted” 
submarine policy, offering to America an insulting privilege 
of sending one ship a week to England provided it were painted 
in stripes of certain colors and width, and provided it followed 


WOODROW WILSON’S WAR MESSAGE 623 

0 

a certain narrow ocean lane marked out by Germany. Presi¬ 
dent Wilson at once dismissed the German ambassador, accord¬ 
ing to his promise of the preceding March, and recalled Ambassa¬ 
dor Gerard from Berlin, — expressing still to his countrymen 
a hope that Germany might refrain from compelling them, 
“ by some overt act,” to repel force by force. March 12, after 
more American citizens had been murdered at sea, 1 he placed 
guards on our merchant vessels. Germany announced that 
such guards , if captured, would he treated as pirates. Now 
the temper of the nation was changing swiftly. Apathy van¬ 
ished. Direct and open opposition to war there still was from 
extreme pacifists and from pro-Germans, including the or¬ 
ganization of the Socialist party : but the great majority of the 
nation roused itself to defend the rights of mankind against a 
dangerous government running amuck, and turned its eyes 
confidently to the President for a signal. And April 2 President 
Wilson appeared before the new Congress, met in special ses¬ 
sion, to ask it to declare that we were now at war with Germany. 
April 6, by overwhelming votes, that declaration was adopted. 

America went to war not to avenge slights to its “honor,” 
or merely to protect the property of its citizens, or even merely 
to protect their lives at sea. America went to war not merely 
in self-defense. We did war for this, but more in defense of 
free government, in defense of civilization, in defense of hu¬ 
manity, and in hope of establishing a lasting world peace. Said 
President Wilson’s war message : 

Neutrality is no longer feasible, or desirable, when the peace of the 
world is involved, and the freedom of its peoples, and when the menace 
to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic govern- 

1 Besides the eight American vessels sunk before March, 1916, eight had 
been sunk in the one month from February 3 to March 2, 1917. During the 
two months, February and March, 105 Norwegian vessels were sunk, with 
the loss of 328 lives. By April 3, 1917, according to figures compiled by the 
United States government, 686 neutral vessels had been sunk by Germany 
without counting American ships. When we turn to the still more important 
question of lives, we count up 226 American citizens slain by the action of 
German submarines before April, 1917. Before the close of the war, 5000 
Norwegian citizens were murdered in like manner. 


Declaration 
of war, 

April 6, 1917 


* 


624 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1917 


ments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their 
will, not the will of their people. . . . We have no quarrel with the 
German people. ... A steadfast concert for peace can never be main¬ 
tained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic 
government could be trusted to keep faith within it. Only free peoples 
. . . can prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interests of 
their own. . . . 

We are glad ... to fight for the ultimate peace of the world and for 
the liberation of its peoples, the German people included. . . . The 
world must he made safe for democracy . . . . We have no selfish 
ends. We desire no conquests, no dominion. We seek no indemnities 
for ourselves, no material compensations for the sacrifices we shall 
freely make. . . . The right is more precious than peace ; and we shall 
fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts — 
for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a 
voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small 
nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peo¬ 
ples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations. . . . 


The war 
spreads 


German 
success in 
1917 


And now the war spread more widely still. Cuba at once 
followed the example of the Lnited States in declaring war 
against Germany, and most of the countries of South and Cen¬ 
tral America either took the same action within a few months 
or at least broke off diplomatic relations with the Central Euro¬ 
pean Powers. Portugal had entered the war in 1916, because 
of her close alliance with England, and China and Siam now 
joined the Allies. 

This lining up of the world had mighty moral value, and no 
small bearing upon the matter of supplies. In particular, the 
German ships which, since the beginning of the war, had been 
seeking refuge m the harbors of these new belligerents were 
now seized for the Allies, and helped to make good the losses 
due to submarines. None of these Powers except America, 
however, had much direct effect upon military operations. 

CAMPAIGNS IN 1917: RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 

And in spite of the entry of America, Germany continued 
to win in 1917. Russia dropped out. In December of 1916, 
the Duma, frantically restless at the control of the Tsar by pro- 


THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 


625 


German courtiers, adopted a daring resolution declaring that 
“dark forces’" were betraying the nation. The Tsar then dis¬ 
missed all Liberals from his councils and openly threw himself 
into the hands of the most reactionary ministers. These min¬ 
isters maddened the Petrograd populace by permitting or pre¬ 
paring breakdown in the distribution of food. March 11, the 
populace rose. The troops joined the rioters. The Duma, or¬ 
dered to adjourn, defied the royal power; and Liberal leaders 
(Constitutional Democrats led by Miliukof) proclaimed a pro¬ 
visional government, which was promptly and peacefully ac¬ 
cepted by the army and by the nation. Deserted by all classes, 
Nicholas abdicated, March 15. Optimists among the Allies 
believed that Russia had merely passed from an inefficient au¬ 
tocracy to a sane and efficient republic. Keener-eyed thinkers 
warned (1) that, in the complete collapse of her industrial sys¬ 
tem, Russia would almost inevitably be forced into the hands 
of extremists; and (2) that the huge empire would probably 
break up into separate and possibly warring states — which in 
the past had had no real bond of union except the perished 
autocracy. 

These gloomy surmises proved correct. The provisional gov¬ 
ernment of Miliukof could not stand the strain of foreign war 
and of internal dissolution, and in a few weeks (June, 1917) 
it was replaced by a Socialist-democratic government led by 
Kerensky. This interesting man was an emotional, well-mean¬ 
ing enthusiast, — a talker rather than a doer, altogether unfit 
to grapple with the tremendous difficulties before Russia. 
Finland, the Ukrainian districts, and Siberia were breaking 
away from central Russia. Everywhere the starving and des¬ 
perate peasants had begun to appropriate the lands of the great 
estates, sometimes quietly, sometimes with violence and out¬ 
rage. Transportation was broken down, and the crude indus¬ 
trial system was gone. The army was completely demoralized. 
The peasant soldiers, so often betrayed by their officers, were 
eager for peace. Whole regiments mutinied, murdered their 
aristocratic officers, broke up, and went home, to get their share 


The Russia! 
Revolution: 
the pro¬ 
visional 
govern¬ 
ment of 
Constitu¬ 
tional 
Democrats 


The Keren¬ 
sky govern¬ 
ment 


626 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1917 


The Bol¬ 
shevik 
Revolution: 
Russia out 
of the war 


The cam¬ 
paign in the 
West 


Nivelle’s 
failure on 
the Aisne 


of the land. The remaining army was intoxicated with the 
new political “ liberty, ” and fraternized with the few German 
regiments left to watch it. Russia was really “out of the war.” 

During this chaos, real power over nearly all Russia fell to 
new councils of workmen’s delegates (with representatives also 
from the army and the peasantry). The Extreme Socialists, or 
Bolshevists, had seen that these “soviets,” rather than the old 
agencies, had become the real government, and by shrewd po¬ 
litical campaigning they captured these bodies. After a six- 
months’ rule, Kerensky fled; and (November 7, 1917) the 
Bolshevists, led by Nikolai Lenin and Leon Trotsky, seized 
control and announced their determination to make peace upon 
the basis of “no indemnities and no annexations.” Naturally 
the Allies were deeply indignant that the new Russia should 
so betray the cause of freedom ; but it is understood now that 
no Russian government could have continued the war. The 
Russian people had borne greater sacrifice than any other; 
they were absolutely without resources ; they were unspeakably 
weary of w ar, and they failed to see that German victory would 
mean the return of the Tsar. 

In the West the Allies had begun the spring campaigns in 
high hopes. The French had borne the heaviest burden so far, 
but they were ready for one more supreme blow. Their new 
commander, Nivelle, was a brilliant general, but his plans be¬ 
came known to the enemy, probably by treachery, and his 
great offensive on the Aisne was heavily repulsed. He was 
superseded by Petain, the hero of Verdun; but the army was 
so demoralized and discouraged that it could undertake no fur¬ 
ther important operations during the season. This of itself 
made British success almost impossible. 

Very early in the season, before the French failure, the Ger¬ 
mans had executed an extended withdrawal in front of the British 
lines, in Picardy and Flanders, from their trenches of two years’ 
warfare to a new “ Hindenburg Line,” which, they boasted, had 
been prepared so as to be absolutely impregnable to any assault. 


THE ITALIAN COLLAPSE 


627 


This maneuver delayed Haig’s attack for some weeks. His The Ger- 
heavy guns had to be brought up to the new positions over 
territory rendered almost impassable by the Germans in their retreat ”to 
retreat, and new lines of communication had to be established. the Hin ~ 
These things were accomplished, however, with a rapidity and Line.” g 
efficiency wholly surprising to the German High Command; 
and in the subsequent British attack (April to November) — offensive 
even though French cooperation practically failed — the Ger¬ 
mans were saved only by the fact that now they were able to 
transfer all their best divisions from the Russian front. 


The Russian collapse had been helped on by an exceedingly German 
skillful German propaganda. Russian soldiers had been taught ga ^ a ' 
persistently by German emissaries that the war was the Tsar’s successful 
war, or at least a capitalist war; and that their German brothers m Ru + ssia ’. 
were quite ready to give the new Russia a fair peace. A little Italy 
later the same tactics were repeated successfully against the Ital¬ 
ians, until their military machine, too, almost went to pieces. 1 

Then, the Austrians, reinforced by German troops, suddenly The Italian 
took the offensive. They tore a huge gap in the Italian lines, colla P se 
captured 200,000 prisoners and much of Italy’s heavy artil¬ 
lery, and advanced into Venetia, driving the remnants of the 
Italian army before them in rout. French and British reinforce¬ 
ments were hurried in; and the Italians rallied when they saw 
how they had been tricked. The Teutons proved unable to 
force the line of the Piave River; and Venice and the rich Lom¬ 
bard plain were saved. Italy had not been put out of the war 
as Russia had been ; but for the next six months, until well into 
the next year, the most that she could do, even with the help of 
Allied forces sadly needed elsewhere, was to hold her new line. 

The brightest phase of the year’s struggle was at the point The U-boat 

where there had seemed the greatest peril. Germany’s new campaign 

fails 

1 One thing that made the Italian army susceptible to this propaganda 
was the terrible fact that the wives and children of the common soldiers 
were famishing for bread, information of which condition was just creeping 
through into the ranks in an even exaggerated form. 


628 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1917 


America 
helps 
beat the 
submarines 


submarine warfare had indeed destroyed an enormous shipping 
tonnage, and for a few months had really promised to make 
good the threat of starving England into surrender. But an 
admirable English convoy system w T as organized to protect im¬ 
portant merchant fleets; shipbuilding was speeded up, to supply 
the place of tonnage sunk; submarine chasers and patrol boats 



leet of Airplanes over ban Diego, California. America developed her 
aerial service during the war on a vast scale, at enormous expense, but 
did not succeed m placing any fighting planes on the war front. American 
airmen, however, won great distinction in planes furnished by the Allies. 

waged relentless, daring, and successful war against the barba¬ 
rous craft of the enemy. America sent five battleships to rein¬ 
force the British Grand Fleet, and — more to the purpose — 
a much more considerable addition to the anti-submarine fleet; 
and newly created American shipyards had begun to launch 
new cargo ships in ever increasing numbers, upon a scale never 
before known to the world. The Allies were kept supplied with 


















THE COLLAPSE OF ITALY 


629 



food and other necessaries enough to avert any supreme calamity. 
Before September, 1917, the menace — in its darkest form — 
had passed. Submarines 
remained a source of loss 
and serious annoyance; 
but it had become plain 
that they were not to be 
the decisive factor in the 
war. 


Moreover, America was 
slowly getting into the 
struggle — slowly, and yet 
more swiftly than either 
friend or foe had dreamed 
possible. The general ex¬ 
pectation had been, that, 
totally unprepared as the 
United States was, her chief 
contribution w r ould be in 
money, ships, and supplies. 

These she gave in generous 
measure. 1 But, also, from 
the first the government 
wisely planned for military 
participation on a huge 
scale. Congress was in¬ 
duced to pass a “selective 
conscription” act; and as 
early as June a small con¬ 
tingent of excellent fight- „ 

John J. Pershing. 

ers was sent to L ranee — 

mainly from the old regular army — under the command of 
General John J. Pershing. In the early fall, new regiments 

1 With all our wealth, this was accomplished only by organized self-sacri¬ 
fice, under government advice. In 1917 an unusually poor crop left America, 


America’s 
manpower 
begins to 
count 




630 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1917 


were transported (some 300,000 before Christmas), and per¬ 
haps half a million more were in training. By 1920, it was 
then thought by the hopeful, America could place three million 
men in the field in Europe, or even five million, and so decide 
the war. But events were to make a supreme exertion neces¬ 
sary even sooner; and America was to meet the need. 


THE LAST YEAR, 1918 


French dis¬ 
content and 
war-weariness 


Peace feel¬ 
ing in Eng¬ 
land 


France could stand one year more of war, but she was very 
nearly “bled white,” as Germany had boasted. Her working- 
classes were war-weary and discouraged, and the Germans had 
infected large classes in that country more or less success¬ 
fully with a poisonous propaganda to the effect that Eng¬ 
land was using France to fight her battles and that she her¬ 
self was bearing far less than her proper share of the burden. 
French morale was in danger of giving way, as Russian and 
Italian had given way. It was saved by two things: by the 
tremendous energy of the aged Clemenceau — “The Tiger” 
whom the crisis had called from his retirement to the pre¬ 
miership ; and by the encouraging appearance in France, none 
too soon, of American soldiers in large numbers. 

In England, too, peace talk began to be heard, not merely 
among the workers but here and there in all ranks of society. 
And among the laborers this dangerous leaning was fearfully 
augmented when the Russian Bolshevists published copies of 
“ Secret Treaties ” between England, France, Italy, and the Tsar’s 
government, revealing the Allied governments as purchasing one 
another’s aid by promises of territorial and commercial spoils. 


by the usual computation, only 20 million bushels of wheat for export • but 
the Food Commission induced the American people cheerfully, to limit'con¬ 
sumption to save the waste,” and to use substitute foods, so that we did 
export 141 million bushels to the Allies, — or about so much for each man 
woman, and child m England France, and Italy, as we kept for each one 

a o h °T , T f ° f S Too C ° al ^ f e0ple learned t0 heat offices and Hornes only to 
65 mste-d of to 72 , and for many weeks, closed places of business on cer- 

a days to save coal A.little later, to save the petrol needed for auto¬ 
trucks and airplanes in France, “gasless” Sunday took its place in America 
alongside the earlier ‘‘wheatless,” “meatless,” and “heatless” days oTeach 


WAR WEARINESS 


631 


Even in Germany the masses of the people were war-weary. 
The entire generation of young men was threatened with extinc¬ 
tion, and children were being pitifully stunted from lack of 
food. The “Independent Socialists,” as Ludendorff tells 
us, had spread among the people a peace propaganda which 
crippled seriously the efficiency of the army. The Reichs¬ 
tag actually adopted resolutions in favor of peace without an¬ 
nexations or indemnities — which from the German viewpoint 
was.extremely conciliatory. But the junkers and great capital¬ 
ists were still bent upon complete military victory, and seemed 
to see it within their grasp; and the German w’ar lords at 
once made it plain that they recognized no binding force in the 
Reichstag resolutions. They had knocked out Russia, put 
out Italy temporarily at least, and might now turn all their 
strength as never before upon France and England. They were 
confident that they could win the war before American armies 
could become an important factor. The Allies, they insisted, 
had not shipping enough to bring the Americans in any numbers ; 
still less to bring the supplies needful for them; and then the 
Americans “couldn’t fight” anyway without years of training. 

Thus in 1918 the war became a race between Germany and 
America. Could America put decisive numbers in action on 
the West front before Germany could deliver a knock-out blow? 
While winter held the German armies inactive, the British and 
American navies carried each week thousands of American 
soldiers toward the front. During these same months America 
and England won a victory in the moral field. Austria, now 
under a new emperor, suggested peace negotiations in a concil¬ 
iatory note, but without indicating any specific terms. In 
reply, in two great speeches, Premier Lloyd George and President 
Wilson stated the war aims of the Allies with a studious modera¬ 
tion and a keen logic which conciliated wavering elements in 
their own countries, and at the same time drove deeper the 
wedge between the German government and the German people. 
Lloyd George (January 6, 1918) demanded complete reparation 
for Belgium, but disclaimed intention to exact indemnities other 


Conditions 
in Germany 


A race be¬ 
tween Ger¬ 
many and 
America 


632 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1918 


The 

“ Fourteen 
Points ” 


than payment for injuries done by Germany in defiance of inter¬ 
national law. President Wilson had already declared that there 
could be no safe peace with the faithless Hohenzollern govern¬ 
ment; and now his address contained his famous Fourteen 
Points, which were soon accepted apparently throughout the 
Allied world as a charter of a coming world peace. The more 
important of these were as follows: 


1. “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at; after which, diplo¬ 
macy shall proceed always ... in the public view.” ... 3. .Re¬ 

moval, so far as possible, of economic barriers. 4. Disarmament by 
international action. 5. An “absolutely impartial adjustment of all 
colonial claims ... the interests of peoples concerned to have equal 
weight with the equitable claim of the government whose title is to 
be determined.” 6. Evacuation of all Russian territory, and 
“a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions 
of her own choosing, [with] assistance also of every kind that she may 
herself desire.” 7. Evacuation and restoration of Belgium. 8. Rep¬ 
aration for devastation in France, and return of Alsace-Lorraine. 
9. “Readjustment of the frontiers of Italy . . . along dearly recogniz¬ 
able lines of nationality .” ... 11 . Serbia to be given a free and secure 

access to the sea; and the relations of the Balkan states to be “deter¬ 
mined by friendly council along dearly recognizable lines of allegiance and 
nationality .” 13. A free Poland (with access to the sea), “to include 

the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations .” 14. A 

“general association of nations” under specific covenants. 


The significance of the Fourteen Points lay even more in their 
spirit than in these detailed provisions. “ We have no jealousv 
of German greatness,” concluded this great utterance, u and 
there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We do not wish 
to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of 
trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other 
peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and 
law and fair dealing.” 

Brest- And now Germany herself made plain how right the Allies 

Litovsk were in their contention that the Hohenzollerns could be trusted 
to keep no promises. March 3, 1918, the German militarists, 
with the grossest of bad faith, shamelessly broke their many 


























































































































I 



Zeebrugge 

OsterxLjS^ 


Antwerp 


Malines 


> o Louvain 

Brussels 


Namur Me2—*■ 


Mons 


Bethune 


'ouai: 


Coblence 


.aubeuge 


<%Gambr&. 

mmm 

Bapaume. 


•■LUXEMBURG 
I \ . 

jLuxembuf, 
Longwy\_ ^ / 


Compiegfie 


-- 

heims °a 


Verdun A. 

Mars la Tour<x 
St.Mihiei 


■Chateau 

Thierry 


Strassburg 


EpinaJ 


Belfort o 


Line, of July 151918 
“ f ‘ Nov. 10 “ 


SWITZ, 


The War on the West Front. — German lines on July 15 and 

November 10, 1918. 







WILSON’S FOURTEEN POINTS 


633 


pledges to the helpless Bolshevists and forced upon Russia the 

Peace of Brest-Litovsk. By that dictated treaty, Germany 
virtually became overlord to a broad belt of vassal states taken 
from Russia, Finland, the Baltic Provinces, Lithuania, Po¬ 
land, Ukrainia, — and even the remaining “Great Russia” had 
to agree to German control of her industrial reorganization. 
When the German perfidy had revealed itself suddenly, after 
long and deceitful negotiations, the angered and betrayed Bol¬ 
shevists wished to renew the war. They were absolutely help¬ 
less, however, without prompt Allied aid upon a large scale. 
This aid they asked for, but urgent cablegrams brought no 
answer. The Allies apparently had been so repelled by the Bol¬ 
shevist industrial and political policy that they were unwilling 
to deal with that government, and preferred to leave Russia to 
its fate — and to the Germans. At the moment this policy 
was disastrous. Murmurs in Germany against the war were 
stilled for a time by the prospect of a new empire and of large 
stores of Russian wheat. 

Naturally the Germans opened the campaigns in the West 
at the earliest moment possible. They had now a vast superior¬ 
ity both in men and in heavy guns there. March 21 they at¬ 
tacked the British lines in Picardy with overwhelming forces. 
After five days of terrific fighting the British were hurled out 
of their trench lines and driven back with frightful losses nearly 
to Amiens, leaving a broad and dangerous gap between them 
and the French. But the Germans had exhausted themselves 
in their mass attack; and, while they paused, a French force 
threw itself into the gap, and British reserves reinforced the 
shattered front lines. 

For the first time since the First Battle of the Marne, the 
Germans had forced the fighting on the West front into the 
open. In April they struck again farther north, in Flanders, 
and again they seemed almost to have overwhelmed the British ; 
but, fighting desperately, “with our backs to the wall” as Haig 
phrased it in his solemn order to his dying army, and reinforced 
by some French divisions, the British kept their front unbroken, 


The last 
German 
offensive 


634 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1918 


Chateau- 

Thierry 


Ferdinand 

Foch 


The Amer¬ 
icans arrive 


Foch’s 

offensive 


bent and thinned though it was. After another month of prep¬ 
aration, the Germans struck fiercely in a general attack on 
the French lines north of the Aisne, and, breaking through for 
the moment on an eighteen-mile front, once more reached the 
Marne. Here, however, they were halted, largely by American 
troops, at Chateau-Thierry. Then, while the Americans made 
splendid counter-attacks, as at Belleau Wood (renamed, for 
them, “ Wood of the Marines”), the French lines were reformed, 
so that the Allies still presented a continuous front, irregular 
though it was with dangerous salients and wedges. At almost 
the same time, Austria, forced into action again in Italy by Ger¬ 
man insistence, was repulsed in a general attack on the Piave. 

Time was fighting for the Allies. Disasters had at last in¬ 
duced them to appoint a generalissimo. This position was 
given to Ferdinand Foch, the hero of the First Marne 
(p. 605). For the rest of the struggle, the Allied forces were 
directed with a unity and skill that had been impossible under 
divided commands, even with the heartiest desire for coopera¬ 
tion. 

And now, too, America really had an army in France. Be¬ 
fore the end of June, her effective soldiers there numbered 
1,250,000. Each month afterward brought at least 300,000 
more. By September the number exceeded two million, with 
a million moie alieady training in America. The Germans 
could not again take up the offensive for five weeks (June 11— 
July 15), and in this interval the balance of available man-power 
turned against them. July 15, they attacked again in great 
force along the Marne, but this onset broke against a stone-wall 
resistance of French and American troops. For the first time 
in the war, a carefully prepared German offensive failed to gain 
ground. 

The failure was plain by the 17th. On the 18th, before 
the Germans could withdraw or reorganize, Foch began his 
great offensive, by counter-attacking upon the exposed west¬ 
ern flank of the invaders. This move took the Germans com¬ 
pletely by surprise. Their front all but collapsed along a criti- 




World War Scenes. 


Above. — Review of French Troops at Moselles. 

Below. — Range-finding. French artillery officers in the Argonne forest 
discovering position of an enemy battery with the “range-finder,” and 
telephoning directions to their own battery far behind them. 









■ xKwm 


World War Scenes. 

A Joffre~~ German Pris °ners marching under French guard at Camp 

Below. — American Soldiers in action in the Argonne campaign — 
with machine gun. H s 







THE AMERICAN ARMY IN FRANCE 


635 


cal line of twenty-eight miles. Foch allowed them no hour of 
rest. Unlike his opponents, he did not attempt gigantic at¬ 
tacks, to break through at some one point. Instead, he kept up 
a continuous offensive, threatening every part of the enemy’s 
front, but striking now here, now there, on one exposed flank 
and then on another, always ready at a moment to take advan¬ 
tage of a new opening, and giving the enemy no chance to with¬ 
draw their forces without imperiling key positions. Before 
the end of August the Allies had won back all the ground lost 
in the spring. The Germans had made their last throw — and 
lost. Foch’s pressure never relaxed. In September, American 
divisions on the south end of the front won back St. Mihiel in St. Mihiel 
bloody fighting. 1 At the same time the British toward the 
north were wrenching great sections of the boasted “ Hindenburg 
Line” from the foe. In the opening days of October the Ger¬ 
man commanders reported to Berlin that the war was lost. 

This result was determined largely by events in the East. Victories 
Now that there was no Tsar to interfere, the English and French in the East 
had deposed and banished King Constantine of Greece; and 
Venizelos, the new head of the Greek state, was warmly com¬ 
mitted to the Allied cause. In September, the Allied force, so 
long held inactive at Saloniki, suddenly took the offensive, 
crushing -the Bulgarians in a great battle on the Vardar; and 
Bulgaria’s unconditional surrender opened the way for an at¬ 
tack upon Austria from the south. 

The preceding year a small British expedition from India 
had worked its way up the Tigris to Bagdad; and another 
from Egypt had taken Jerusalem. Now this last army had 
finally been reinforced, and in September, in a brilliant campaign, 
it occupied Syria and forced Turkey to make abject submission. 

Austria, too, had dissolved. Bohemia on one side, and Slovenes, 

1 Brief, relatively, as was America’s part in the fighting, the American 
casualties were in all almost a third of a million, or one for every five men 
actually engaged on the front. Of these, eighty thousand youth found 
graves in French soil, besides twice as many more irreparably crippled. 

Ludendorff, the German chief of staff, speaks in the highest terms of the 
gallantry of the American troops, but asserts that their enormous losses 
were due to the fact that they were handled in too close formation. 


636 


THE WORLD WAR IN 1918 


Fall of 
Germany 


Croats, and Bosnians on the other, were organizing independ¬ 
ent governments — with encouragement from America and 
the Allies. Then, October 24, Italy struck on the Piave. The 
Austrian army broke in rout. Austria called frantically for an 
armistice, and even before one was granted (November 4) the 
ancient Hapsburg Empire had dissolved into turbulent and 
mutually hostile “republics.” 

Germany had begun to treat for surrender a month earlier, 
but held out a week longer. October 5, the German Chancellor 
(now the liberal Prince Max of Baden who had been a severe 
critic of Germany’s war policy) had asked President Wilson 
to arrange an armistice, offering to accept the Fourteen Points 
as a basis for peace. The reply made it plain once more that 
America and the Allies would not treat with the old despotic 
government, and that no armistice would be granted at that 
late moment which did not secure to the Allies fully the fruits 
of their military advantages in the field and make a renewal of 
the struggle by Germany impossible. Meantime the fighting 
went on, with terrific losses on both sides. The French and 
Americans, pushing north in the Argonne and across the Meuse, 
were threatening the trunk railway at Sedan, the only road open 
for German retreat except the one through Belgium. The 
British and Belgians pushed the discouraged invaders out of 
northern France and out of a large part of Belgium. The 
pursuit at every point was so hot that retreat had to be foot by 
foot, or in complete rout. As a last desperate throw, the Ger¬ 
man war lords ordered the Kiel fleet to sea, to engage the Eng¬ 
lish navy, 1 but the common sailors, long on the verge of mutiny, 
broke into open revolt. Even in the army many regiments were 
muttering mutiny against further war. And in Germany itself 
in many large cities the Extreme Socialists were openly prepar¬ 
ing revolution. 2 

1 May 31, 1916, the German fleet had ventured out of the Baltic and 
©ng&gcd a division of the English navy. Losses were tremendous on both 
sides, but the result was indecisive, except that the German fleet retired to 
its former shelter, to remain there until the close of the war. 

2 German militarists insist, with considerable basis, that Germany was 


THE GERMAN SURRENDER 


637 


Late in October the War Council of the Allies made known 
to Germany the terms upon which she could have an armistice 
preliminary to the drafting of a peace treaty. Germany could 
save her army from destruction, and her territory would not 
suffer hostile conquest. But she was to surrender at once 
Alsace-Lorraine, and withdraw her troops everywhere across 
the Rhine, leaving the Allies in possession of a broad belt of 
German territory. She was to surrender practically all her 
fleet, most of her heavy artillery, her aircraft, and her railway 
engines. Likewise she was at once to release all prisoners, 
though her own were to remain in the hands of the Allies. No¬ 
vember 11, Germany made this surrender to whatever further 
conditions the Allies might impose in the final settlement — 
though they did pledge themselves to base their terms, with 
certain reservations, upon Mr. Wilson’s Fourteen Points. 

Germany had already collapsed internally. November 7, 
Bavaria deposed her king and proclaimed herself a republic. 
In Berlin the Moderate Socialists seized the government. State 
after state followed. November 9, the Kaiser fled to Holland, 
whence he soon sent his formal abdication. German autocracy 
had fallen. 

really defeated not by the armies of the Allies but by the propaganda 
against militarism. Ludendorff mentions as especially effective the circu¬ 
lation in the army of Wilson’s Fourteen Points and Lichnowsky’s Memoirs 
(p.599). 


The 

Armistice 


November 
n, 1918 


CHAPTER XLVII 


SINCE THE WAR 


Danger of 
anarchy in 
Central 
Europe 


The Ger¬ 
man Re¬ 
public 


Hungary 


Czecho¬ 

slovakia 


New Baltic 
states 


January 18, 1919, the Peace Congress met at Versailles to 
reconstruct Europe. There was supreme need. In Germany a 
National Assembly (elected by true universal suffrage, male 
and female) had set up a federal republic. The new govern¬ 
ment was in the control of a union of “Moderate Socialists” 
and “German Democrats” (the old Liberals); but it had to 
maintain itself precariously (as is still the case in 1923) against 
revolts of “Extreme Socialists” of the Bolshevist type, while 
from the opposite side it was threatened with aristocratic army- 
officer plots for monarchic restoration. 

Hungary for a time had tried a liberal republican government. 
But the Allied blockade, stupidly continued, made work and food 
scarce, so that the starving populace soon set up a Bolshevist 
rule. A little later, it may be added here, two more revolu¬ 
tions, secretly backed by the Allied Council at Paris, replaced 
this government, first by a Moderate Socialist government and 
then by a reactionary army-officer government republican 
in little but name. Meantime Roumania had taken advan¬ 
tage of Hungary’s woes to declare war; and the Roumanian 
army had ravaged the country for months as savagely as ever 
Germany did Belgium, even after Hungary had assented to all 
Roumania’s demands for cessions of territory. 

Bohemia , enlarged by the addition of Moravia, had become 
Czechoslovakia. This republic has so far been the most stable 
and promising of the new states in Central Europe; but at the 
time it was distracted by conflicts with Germany, with Austria, 
and with Poland, over conflicting boundary claims. The new 
Republic of Poland , too, had other contests, bordering on war, 
upon her remaining frontiers — with Russian Bolshevists and 
with Germany — besides being torn with internal faction and 
with peasant massacres of her Jews. Like anarbhy, rising into 

638 


EUROPEAN CHAOS 


639 


civil wars, held sway in every other of the chain of border states 
that had split off from Russia, — Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, 
Courland, Lithuania, Ukrainia. (Map after 632.) 

Further to the south, Serbia had become Jugoslavia, by the Jugo- 
long-sought union with Bosnia, Slavonia, and Croatia; but s,avia 
that still inharmonious state was in daily peril of war with Italy 
over the Adriatic coast, with some actual armed clashes. And 
Italy was at daggers drawn with Greece over southern Albania, 
the islands of the Aegean, and the coasts of Asia Minor. 

Each country felt, with too much reason, that the more it 
could lay hands on before the settlement, the more it would 
finally keep, and so sought to grab as much as possible in the 
interval. Still more serious than this political chaos was the Industrial 
demoralization of industry. Millions of disbanded soldiers demoral - 
were returning to their homes, after years of trench life, to find 
neither work nor food. Lack of shipping made it a slow process 
to bring into Central Europe the raw materials needed to start 
the factory wheels again and to replace the machinery worn 
out during the long Allied blockade. Over wide areas, idle 
multitudes were suffering from insufficient food; and this dis¬ 
tress was the harder to bear because in every country thousands 
of war-profiteers were spending their shameful riches in insolent 
waste. 

The Peace Congress was made up of delegations from the The Peace 
twenty-three Allied governments, with five more from England’s Congress 
colonies — Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and 
India. Each country’s delegation had one vote. Countries 
that had been neutral were invited to send representatives to 
be called in upon special matters that might concern them. 

Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Russia were allowed 
no representation. 

President Wilson headed the American delegation; Lloyd The “ Big 
George and Orlando, the English and Italian premiers, rep- Four 
resented their countries ; and Clemenceau, head of the French 
delegation, was naturally chosen president of the assembly. 


640 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


Woodrow 

Wilson 


These leaders made up the “Big Four,” and part of the time 
this inner circle became the “Big Five” by the inclusion of the 
Japanese representative. 

From the first there were critical differences within the “Big 
Four.” Mr. Wilson had promised the world, Germany included, 
“a permanent peace based on unselfish, unbiased justice,” and 
“ a new international order based upon broad universal principles 
of right.” Lloyd George was inclined to sympathy with such 



a program; but he was sadly hampered in action, because, in 
the parliamentary elections just before, he had won by appeal¬ 
ing to the worst war passions of the English people. The other 
leaders thought President Wilson, in Clemenceau’s words, 
merely a benevolent dreamer of Utopias, and they preferred to 
rest rearrangements upon the old “balance of power” plan, 
to be maintained by rival alliances and armed camps, — 
a plan which bloody centuries had proved a seed bed of 
war. 















THE BIG FOUR 


641 


By the war-weary peoples of Europe, however, the Wilson 
program was at first hailed with joy. While the diplomats were 
skillfully delaying the meeting of the assembly, Mr. Wilson 
journeyed through England, France, and Italy, received every¬ 
where by the masses with striking demonstrations as “the 
president of all of us,” the apostle of world peace and human 
brotherhood. For a time it looked as though he might at a pinch 
override the hostile attitude of the governments by appealing 
over their heads to the peoples themselves ; and in a great speech 
at Milan, just after slurring attacks upon him by French states¬ 
men, he hinted forcefully at such a possibility. 

. . But as months passed in wearisome negotiations, old animos- Weakened 
ities began to show in each nation toward neighboring peoples, events 
until this chance for generous unanimity was lost. Moreover, m Amenca 
Mr. Wilson had been seriously weakened by events at home. 

Late in the campaign for Congressional elections in the preceding 
November, he had made an appeal for indorsement of his policies 
by a Democratic victory. Instead, the elections gave both 
Houses to the Republicans; and the jubilant and vengeful 
victors at once entered upon a course of bitter criticism and ob¬ 
struction of which Mr. Wilson’s European opponents took 
shrewd advantage to weaken his influence at Paris. 


In spite of Mr. Wilson’s declaration for open negotiations secret 
(p. 632 ) the European diplomats, with their traditions of back- negotiation 
stair intrigue, carried the point for only occasional full and pub¬ 
lic meetings. Meantime all important matters were settled 
by the inner circle in secret conclave, so that the six public meet¬ 
ings of the Congress (up to July) were called merely for formal 
ratification of conclusions already arrived at by the “Big 
Four.” 

To offset this disappointment, Mr. Wilson seemed for a while Covenant 
to have won a splendid victory for a “League of Nations.” league 
three months before America entered the war (January 22, 

1917), as his last peace effort, he had read to the American Con¬ 
gress a notable address proposing a League of Nations to enforce 


642 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


The Ger¬ 
man treaty 


peace, — a peace made by free peoples (among whom the small 
nations should have their full voice), secured “ by the organized 
major force of mankind.” This address itself was one of the 
mighty events in history. Individuals had dreamed sometimes 
of a world organization for peace and progress; but then for 
the first time did an authorized spokesman of a great nation 
bring that idea into the realm of practical statesmanship. Now 
Mr. Wilson felt unhesitatingly that the building of such a world 
league was the most important work of the Versailles Congress 
— and indeed a necessary prelude to any peace other than one 
of vengeance and booty. 

In March, after some weeks of consideration, a committee 
headed by Mr. Wilson made public a League covenant it had 
prepared. After sharp criticism in the United States Senate, this 
constitution was slightly modified, and then adopted by the 
Peace Congress. The union is very loose, and its managing bod¬ 
ies are not really a government. Charter membership was offered 
to forty-five nations, — all the then organized governments in 
the world except Russia, the four “enemy countries,” and Costa 
Rica, San Domingo, and Mexico. Admission of new members, 
and other amendments, require the unanimous consent of Eng¬ 
land, France, Italy, and Japan (and America, if she joins the 
League), together with a majority vote of all states; and for 
any other action of consequence the consent of all nations is 
demanded, except that no party to a dispute has a voice in its 
settlement. Wise provisions prohibit secret treaties in future, 
and seek to pave the way for disarmament (though only by unan¬ 
imous consent), for regulation of manufacture of munitions, 
for compulsory arbitration, and for delay in recourse to war even 
if an arbitration is unsatisfactory. 

Meantime the French delegation, frankly skeptical as to the 
value of a League, had devoted itself to securing treaties of 
peace that should render Germany powerless to attack France 
again. Germany protested in vain against the rigor of the terms, 
but June 28 her helpless delegates (summoned to Versailles for 
the purpose) signed the treaty dictated to them. The docu- 


THE PEACE TREATIES 


643 


ment would fill nearly half of this volume. Its main provisions, 
with those of subsequent treaties with the other “ enemy coun¬ 
tries/’ may be summarized briefly : — 

Germany's military power teas destroyed. Her navy was 
limited for the future to six battleships and six light cruisers, 
with no submarines; and her army is not to exceed 100,000 
men — with a careful restriction, too, upon her manufacture of 
munitions. 

Germany's old colonial empire was turned over to England, Bel¬ 
gium, and Japan, in accordance with a secret treaty under which 
Japan had entered the war. This division of plunder was 
faintly cloaked under a pretense that England and Japan were 
to be merely “mandatories” for the League of Nations, holding 
these backward districts as “a sacred trust for civilization.” 
At the first session of the League Assembly, in November of 
1920, some of the small nations desired to establish rules for 
that “trusteeship”; but the English representative declared 
flatly that no action there taken could “limit the freedom of 
action of his government.” Moreover, Shantung with its forty 
million people (p. 522) remained in Japan’s hands, without 
even the pretext of a “mandate,” in spite of the vigorous pro¬ 
test of China. 

Germany lost a fifth of her territory and population in Europe, 
with her most valuable coal deposits. She not only returned 
Danish Sleswig 1 to Denmark and Alsace-Lorraine to France, but 
also ceded three small areas to Belgium, and to Poland not merely 
her old Polish districts but also large strips of distinctly German 
territory in Upper Silesia and east of the Vistula. Moreover, to 
give Poland easy access to the sea, German Dantzig became a 
“free” city (against its will), with roundabout provisions that 
leave it really subject to Poland. Likewise, by veiled annexa- 

1 Sleswig determined its own fate (as the treaty had provided) by plebi¬ 
scites. Denmark showed an honorable and wise desire to annex only such 
districts as desired it, and readily acquiesced in the retention of two thirds of 
the old duchy by Germany. Parts of Upper Silesia were also to have settled 
their own fate ; but France and Poland managed later to take from Germany 
rich districts of that region in spite of an overwhelming German vote 
there. 


644 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


The Aus¬ 
trian treaty 


Minor 

treaties 


tion, France has possibly acquired the Saar valley, east of Alsace, 
with a solid German population. 1 

The’, dismembered Austrian Empire, besides the territorial se¬ 
cessions already noted (p. 638), very properly ceded Galicia 
to Poland, Transylvania to Roumania, and Trieste and the 
rentino to Italy; but, in connection with this last cession, 
in order to provide Italy with a needless “strategic frontier” 
against Austria, that enfeebled country was compelled to cede 
also a strip of strictly German territory (the Brenner Pass in 
the Alps) with a quarter of a million of German people. In 
these ways, Hungary was reduced to about one third its former 
size; and German Austria is left a petty state of 7,000,000 people 
grouped about Vienna (“a capital without a country”) shut off 
from the sea, with its old markets and mines all gone and with 
i.ttle ^cultural land. (This Austria has dragged out the years 
since the treaty m cruel starvation meagerly relieved by Allied 
charity. The land can raise at best only a sixth of its necessary 
oo , and it has practically no other industrial resources. The 
people desire incorporation in Germany; but, at French insist¬ 
ence the Peace Congress forbade this very natural application 
of the promised principle of “self-determination” because it 
might strengthen Germany.) 

In the complex Balkan readjustments, it was found difficult to 
follow the promised “lines of nationality”; but Greece and 
Serbia were given new territory on the north Aegean coast at 
the expense of Bulgaria - which was now shut off from the sea 
except by the route of the Danube. 

“ Turkey ” was reduced to Ada Minor, although the Sultan and 
government officials were permitted to keep their seat in Con¬ 
stantinople. That city, however, along with “the zone of the 


The treaty very properly gave France the a OQ . „ 1 • , _ 

years (under the control of an international l! mi “ GS f ° F fifteen 
France), in return for Germany’s wantonZn 7^77 domina K ted by 
happily, it also provided that at the end of that l F £ ch mm f s : but un- 
the district absolutely (even though the inhnWt ^ *£, an ?j should anne x 
that action) unless Germany should the ablt ants should vote against 

mines. Other proven” of tfe t oatv * T•?“ ful ‘ Value of the 

Germany would be unable to do that ^ probable that 


























































THE PEACE TREATIES 


645 


straits (a narrow strip on both sides of the Dardanelles) was 
made subject to the control of an international commission and 
open to ships of all nations. Armenia and Arabia (the Kingdom 
of Hejaz) were declared independent states. Smyrna went to 
Greece; most of the Aegean islands to Italy; Syria (much 
against its will) to France; and Mesopotamia (with its oil) 
equally unwillingly to England. 1 (As a by-product of these 
arrangements, too, and of the collapse of Russia, England has 



Constantinople and the Golden Horn, — a view from an airplane. 

secured control of all Persia.) In the main all this arrangement 
in the East was a frank surrender to arrogant imperialism, 
French and English; and these “protectors” of Mesopotamia 
and Syria have been compelled to maintain their authority 
by bloody campaigns. 

It may be added here that this Turkish rearrangement was one of 
the first parts of the work at Paris to fall to pieces. The Young Turks, 
or Turkish Nationalists, soon established a separate government in 

1 It should be added that, to the chagrin of the Arabs Palestine was set 
aside, under English protection, for a home for a restored Jewish state — if 
Jews return there in sufficient numbers. 










646 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


The Ger¬ 
man indem¬ 
nity 


Angora, ignoring the Sultan and the “capitulators” at Constantinople 
Dangers from this nationalist movement became a reason why the 
Allied commission moved much larger forces into Constantinople than 
the peace treaty had contemplated — until that city became virtually 
an English possession. Then, in 1921, Greece attacked Turkey in war, 
to get more plunder in Asia Minor. In this, Greece was secretly backed 
by the English government; while France secretly favored the Turks. 
In the fall of 1922 the Turkish Nationalists, under Kemal Pasha, 
drove the Greek army out of Asia, and forced the Allies to permit them 
to reoccupy Constantinople and even European Thrace (including 
Adrianople and important Aegean seaports). At this point a united 
show of force by England, France, and Italy compelled Kemal to 
promise to respect the internationalization of the Zone of the Straits 
(November, 1922); but the whole Eastern situation remains in un¬ 
stable equilibrium. 


Most troublesome of all the problems at the Paris Peace Con¬ 
gress was the question of the money “ reparations” to be paid by 
Germany. That country was required to pay at once some five bil¬ 
lions of dollars in gold and in goods (all then available), besides 
promising to supply many millions of tons of coal each year for 
ten years to Belgium, Italy, and France (in addition to the Saar 
airangement). Further payments were left to be fixed by an 
Allied commission when it should be better known what the 
damages were and how much it would be possible to take; and 
until final payment was made a French army was to occupy 
the German districts west of the Rhine. France showed strong 
inclination to keep the total indemnity indefinite as long as possi¬ 
ble, taking meanwhile from time to time all that could be found ; 
but Lloyd George and English public feeling gradually swung 
over to the opinion that German industry could not be expected 
to revive with its neck in a perpetually strangling noose; and 
in February of 1921 the commission fixed the total indemnity 
at about fifty-six billions of dollars, to be paid in installments 
over forty years. Germany protested that this was an im¬ 
possible sum, and many experts in the Allied countries declared 
it to be three or four times more than Germany’s ability to 
pay. (At the Peace Congress the American experts had 


I 


THE GERMAN INDEMNITY 647 

agreed upon fifteen billions as the proper amount.) France then 
advanced her army of occupation further into German territory, 
willing apparently to retain such territory permanently in place 
of the money reparations. By selling worthless paper money to 
foreign speculators (mainly American), Germany then did 
secure gold enough for the first two installments; but that 
currency depreciated to almost nothing, so that this process 
cannot be repeated; and at this writing (February, 1923) the 
German indemnity remains a chief cause of world demorali¬ 
zation. Undoubtedly Germany might pay more than she has 
paid; but it is unlikely that she will strip herself to pay part , 
as long as she knows she cannot pay all. (And see p. 660.) 

England and the United States formerly sold vast quantities And world 
of goods to Germany. Germany now has no wealth with which trade 
to buy, which is one cause why English and American fac¬ 
tories are idle, and American farm products of little value. 
Moreover, if Germany is to pay any further indemnity, she must 
get the gold by exporting factory goods. To do that she must 
undersell English and American factories in some market (to 
the still greater demoralization of the trade of those countries). 

Therefore England insisted that Germany must place a heavy 
export tax upon her own goods. This makes it difficult for her 
to undersell England — but it also makes it well-nigh impossible 
for her to get gold wherewith to pay indemnities. The world 
is slowly discovering that, under the delicate adjustments of 
modern trade relations, it is not an easy thing to take a huge 
indemnity in money from one country without injuring many 
other countries. 

Many of the objectionable features in the treaties were due The secret 
to the secret bargains for division of spoils by which the Allies treaties 
had bought the aid of one another. When America entered the 
war, she renounced the idea of material gains for herself. Had 
the secret agreements for plunder among the Allies been clearly 
known at that time, America could well have demanded the can¬ 
cellation of all such secret treaties as the price of her aid. When 


648 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


Criticism 
of the Ver¬ 
sailles treaty 


the Congress met, those bargains were still not generally 
understood, but it soon became clear that they would pre¬ 
vent a peace in accord with the Fourteen Points. For a time 
Mr. Wilson stood out against the Congress becoming “a Con¬ 
gress for booty”; and once (when Orlando insisted that Italy 
should have Croatian Fiume, the natural Adriatic door for 
Jugoslavia) he even cabled to America for his ship. This ex¬ 
treme threat prevented that particular act of plunder —though 
Orlando was so incensed that he left the Congress for some 
weeks; and in the end Mr. Wilson was induced to reconcile 
himself to the treaty for the sake of securing the League of 
Nations. 

As soon as the treaty with Germany was made public, how¬ 
ever, it was denounced vehemently by many earnest thinkers in 
all lands. Indeed some of the experts attached to the American 
delegation had already resigned in protest; and Jan Smuts, 
South Africa’s hero-statesman, declared in a formal statement 
that he signed for his country only because peace must be made 
at once and because he hoped that the worst features of the 
treaty might be modified later by the League of Nations. Such 
criticism had little or nothing to do with sympathy for Germany. 
It was based upon the conviction that the treaty was dishonor¬ 
able to the victors, inasmuch as it broke faith with a submis¬ 
sive foe after surrender, and that it would breed future wars — 
and so broke faith even more fatally with hundreds of thousands 
of splendid youth who had given their lives, in long torment and 
suffering, to “win a war that should end war.” At the same 
time the severest critic must confess that the new world map 
made at Veisailles is at least an advance over the old map of 
1914, with political divisions drawn far more according to the 
reasonable and natural lines of race and language and popular 
desires. 

In America there was much opposition to joining the League 
of Nations. President Wilson’s influence finally rallied the 





















^upyriyni uy unacrwooaana underwood. 

Lloyd George and Aristide Briand (the French premier) in confer¬ 
ence at Cannes m August, 1921. After the close of the Peace Con- 
la the fa ) | 1 ,, of 191 real government of Europe lay in an 

Allied Council holding frequent sessions and made up of repre- 
sentatives of the leading lEuropean “Allies.” The premiers of France 
aa< ^ England were the Big Two ” of this Council through 1920-1921 
Lloyd George responding to liberal English feeling, soon showed a 
desire to adopt a gentler policy toward Germany. Toward the close 
Briand began to incline in the same direction, but the anti-German 
feeling in the French Assembly forced him to resign. (See p. 660) 

































AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE 


649 


Democratic Senators in favor of ratification of the Covenant 
without modification. With equal unanimity, the Republicans 
opposed it but upon two widely different grounds. A small 
section declared that for America to join any such “ supergovern¬ 
ment would sacrifice her sovereign independence; that we 
were able to take care of ourselves, and should let the rest of 
the world look after itself. A much larger group objected to 
particular features of this Covenant, but agreed that it was 
no longer possible for America to hold aloof from Europe. Said 
Ex-President Taft: — 

“The argument that to enter this covenant is a departure from the 
time-honored policy of avoiding ‘ entangling alliances ' is an argument 
that is blind to changing conditions. ... The war ended that 
policy. . . . It was impossible for us to maintain the theory of an iso¬ 
lation which did not exist in fact. It will be equally impossible for us 
to keep out of another general European war. We are just as much 
interested in preventing such a war as if we were in Europe.” 

Republican Senators, agreeing with this view, added to the 
covenant certain amendments, with which they were willing 
to ratify. President Wilson claimed that such amendments 
would make ratification invalid; and against his influence the 
Republicans could not muster the necessary two-thirds vote in 
the Senate. The Democrats failed likewise to secure the nec¬ 
essary votes for ratification in the original form. While touring 
the country to arouse support for the covenant, President Wilson 
suffered a distressing physical breakdown, and the whole ques¬ 
tion hung fire for many months. In 1920, the President hoped 
to make the election of his successor a “solemn referendum” 
upon the matter. As usual in American politics, too many other 
questions entered into the campaign to leave any one issue ab¬ 
solutely clear cut; but the Republican “landslide” victory 
shelved any probability of the United States entering the League, 
in its present form, for years to come. 

The League has accomplished some useful work in settling 
minor European differences, and it has admitted several new 


The United 
States re¬ 
fuses to 
enter the 
League 


650 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


members — Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Luxemburg, Costa Rica, 
and Albania; but the absence of the United States (now the 
most powerful and richest country in the world) seriously handi¬ 
caps its usefulness, — especially as Germany and Russia are 
still excluded. 


Bolshevist 

Russia 


The soviet 
system 


Another disturbing factor in the slow return of world progress, 
which the Peace Congress did little to help, was Bolshevist 
Russia. After the fall of the Tsar, society in Russia collapsed. 
Criminals, singly or in bands, worked their will, unchecked 
by any government, in robbery, outrage, and murder, not only 
in country districts but even in the public streets of great cities. 
The cities were starving; and speculators were increasing the 
agony by hoarding supplies to sell secretly to the rich at huge 
profits. Newspapers in the Allied countries, especially in their 
cartoons, ascribed all this to the Bolshevists — who in reality 
put it down. Kerensky had proved utterly unable to grapple 
with the situation; but when the Bolshevists came to power, 
they shot the bandits in batches, and meted out like swift punish¬ 
ment to “forestalled” of food. In such summary proceedings, 
many innocent persons suffered along with the guilty; but at 
least Russia was saved from reverting to savagery. In a few 
weeks, order and quiet were restored ; and the available food was 
“rationed” rigidly (somewhat as in England during the war) 
with particular care for children of all classes. 

The Bolshevists claimed to give political citizenship to all 
useful workers — including teachers, actors, physicians, en¬ 
gineers, and industrial managers, but excluding the idle (rich 
or poor) along with bankers and lawyers, for which classes their 
society has no place. Their governing bodies represent, not 
individual citizens (as our Western governments do), but the 
different kinds of industries. In each “district,” there is a 
shoemakers’ union, a teachers’ union, and so on. Each such 
union chooses delegates to the soviet (p. 560) of the district. 
These district soviets are local governments; and, further, all of 
them within a given province send delegates to a higher “pro- 


BOLSHEVIST RUSSIA 


651 


vincial soviet.” Delegates from the various provincial soviets 
make up the central and supreme soviet at Petrograd. (All 
delegates are subject to recall at any time by the bodies that 
elected them.) 

For the first time in history on a large scale, this government 
at once put into actual operation an extreme kind of socialism, 
along with the confiscation of most private property. This 
alarmed the propertied classes everywhere. 1 The Allies at 
Paris did not think it safe to let the Bolshevist system work 
out its own failure, but, fearing its spread to their own lands, 
attempted to overthrow it by force — for two reasons in par¬ 
ticular : (1) Members of the Bolshevist government unwisely 
and blatantly preached a coming revolution for the world out¬ 
side their own borders; and (2) the Bolshevist plan had been 
put into operation not by the deliberate will of the Russian 
nation, but rather by a skillful coup d’etat on the part of the 
small but perfectly organized class of town workers. 

Indeed, the Bolshevist leaders frankly proclaim that (until 
they can train up a new generation) their government is not 
to be a democracy but a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” rep¬ 
resenting a very small part of the nation. Apportionment of 
delegates to the soviets was arranged, openly, so that ten peas¬ 
ants have no more weight than one factory worker. But the 
ignorant peasants (still making more than ninety percent of the 
nation) were so poorly organized, and so content with the lands 
they had been permitted to appropriate, that they acquiesced 
passively; and the small capitalist and professional classes 
were quickly suppressed. The Bolshevists seized control of 
the army and the press, and put down despotically all public 
agitation against their socialist system. At first, to be sure, 
they treated the old capitalist class with consideration so far 


1 These classes, too, especially in France, held the millions of dollars’ worth 
of old Russian bonds, which the Bolshevists now unwisely repudiated on 
the ground that the Tsars had secured the money to hold the Russian people 
in bondage. In recent months (1922), however, the Bolshevists have re¬ 
peatedly offered to give up this policy of repudiation, if their government 
is given “recognition’’ by the Allies. 


The Allies 
make war 
on Bolshe¬ 
vism. 


Bolshevist 

despotism 


652 


PEACE CONGRESS OF 1919 


The red 
terror 


Allied sup¬ 
port for 
“ emigrant ” 
invaders 


The Russian 
people 
rally patri 
otically to 
the govern¬ 
ment 


as concerned their personal safety. But a little later, when 
the world was attacking Russia in open war, and when the dis¬ 
possessed Russian classes were carrying on a campaign of as¬ 
sassination of Bolshevist leaders and had struck down Lenin 
with a dangerous wound, the Bolshevists adopted a deliberate 
policy of “Terror,” arresting and executing some thousands of 
“aristocrats,” until internal opposition was crushed. (This 
parallels the story of the French Revolution except that the 
Russian “Terror,” bloody as it was, was shorter and less 
atrocious than the French. Certainly the misery it caused 
was, at its worst, less than the misery caused in the old Russia - 
by the age-long tyranny of the Tsars — on which the world 
had looked with complacency.) 

Even before the Terror, the various non-socialist forces might 
have rallied to overthrow or at least to modify Bolshevism, if a 
despotic blunder of the Allies had not identified Bolshevist rule 
with Russian patriotism. Like the French “emigrant” nobles 
of 1792, the Russian courtiers and nobles in 1917, fleeing from 
the Revolution, levied war against the new government of their 
country from without — with foreign aid. Supplied lavishly 
by the Allies and America with arms and money, they at first 
won some success. Kolchak for a time held most of Siberia, — 
succeeded, when the Bolshevists crushed him, by the Japanese; 
Denekin, and later Wrangel, began invasion from Ukrainia; 
and Mannerheim threatened Petrograd from the west. All 
these Russian emigrant leaders claimed flimsily to desire consti¬ 
tutional government, but soon their deeds proved that they 
plotted for the restoration of despotism; and the needless and 
unspeakable atrocities of the various “White” terrors that fol¬ 
lowed their early successes at least equaled the excesses of the 
Bolshevists. 

Meantime Roumania, Poland, and the new Baltic countries 
made the cordon about Russia complete, except for Archangel 
on the north — and that one opening to the world was long held 
by an army of 12,000 Allies and Americans. These troops had 
been sent to Archangel during the last of the war against Ger- 


BOLSHEVIST RUSSIA 


653 


man y > to protect military stores there from German seizure; 
but soon they were used, at the behest of French and Eng¬ 
lish rulers, as an invading army against the new govern¬ 
ment of Russia. It had been claimed that the masses of the 
Russian people, encouraged by the presence of invading armies, 
would rally to overthrow Bolshevist tyranny. Instead they 
rallied to the Bolshevists, to drive out foreign invaders. Es¬ 
pecially did the leading “ intellectuals ” of Russia, like the famous 
author Maxim Gorky, now offer their services to that govern¬ 
ment, although many of them had just been suffering bitterly 
from it. The Russian organization showed amazing ability, 
and before 1920 the newly created “Red army” swept all in¬ 
vaders from Russian soil, except for the Japanese in far-eastern 
Siberia. 1 True, there followed twelve months more of war 
with Poland, aided freely with French money and officers and 
American munitions, 2 but at last, by wise diplomacy, Russia 
secured peace in that quarter also. 

The Allied “blockade” of Russia, however, lasted on in fact The Russian 
into 1921. The small Baltic states, from which she had won bl °ckade 
peace, had no resources for trade; and though England and 
America had technically lifted the blockade some months 
earlier, both continued to refuse passports and even mail and 
wire communication. This of course absolutely prevented 
trade. Meantime the lack of food and of medical supplies — 
which the Bolshevist government was eager to pay for in gold — 
killed more people (mainly mothers, young babies, and other 
hospital cases) than a great war. The blockade, too, kept 
Russia from getting cotton or rubber for her factories, or loco¬ 
motives for her railroads, or machinery for her agriculture; 
and so gave the Bolshevists a plausible excuse for the slowness of 

1 An American force at first cooperated with the Japanese in Siberia, but 
was soon withdrawn. It is supposed that the American government sent 
troops mainly in order that it might be in position later to insist that Japan 
should not permanently hold Siberia. Cf. p. 659 and note. 

2 For a time the English government, it was believed, planned to send 
an English army; but such a project was effectively barred by the unani¬ 
mous slogan from English organized labor, — “Not a man, not a gun, not 
a penny!” 


654 


THE WORLD SINCE THE WAR 


The Rus¬ 
sian fam¬ 
ine of 
1921-2 


The war 
and civili¬ 
zation 


their industrial revival, besides helping to close down some 
American and English industries. 

And then descended on unhappy Russia in 1921-2 the most 
horrible famine ever known even in that land of famines. At 
first many Americans believed it due to discouragement among 
the peasantry who had found their surplus crops of little 
value under Bolshevist rule. Investigation, however, showed 
that, despite all Russia s disorders, the peasants had sown only 
a little less than the usual acreage, but that a long drought of 
unheard-of severity had resulted in a crop of only one fortieth 
the average, so that, in the absence of trade with the world, 
millions were stolidly dying of hunger. This unparalleled 
suffering touched the heart of the world j and for months govern¬ 
ments and charitable organizations hurried food and clothing 
to the stricken land. 1 

The Bolshevist government has not yet been “recognized” 
by America, France, or England, though the last of these coun¬ 
tries has gone far in that direction. The Bolshevists have 
recently modified their socialistic program, by encouraging 

private capital to embark in certain industries (November 
1922). 


In the World War fifty-nine million men served under arms — 
nearly all the physically fit of the leading peoples on the globe. 
These suffered thirty-three million casualties, of which fourteen 
million were deaths or irremediable mutilation and ruin, besides 


* 0n Russia durmg and just after the Revolution, there are three notable 
attempts to tell the truth : Arthur Ransome’s Russia in 1919 is a statement 
of personal observation by a trained, fair-minded Englishman, without 
any faith m the Bolshevist theory; William Bullitt’s The Bullitt Mission 
to Russia is the story of an attempt to bring about peace by an attache of 
the American Peace Delegation at Pans, and it is accompanied by valuable 
documents; Raymond Robins’ Colonel Robins’ Story (edited by William 

, ard) fl ar A he m ° St r ?f d f b i e and im P res sive. (Raymond Robins was the 
head of the American Red Cross in Russia during the Revolution and for 

some Ume afterward. He is a progressive, and was an intimate friend of 
Theodore Roosevelt, and he had of course no sympathy with socialism even 
m much milder forms than that in Russia.) Other information, dealing 
with Russia in 1920, has just become available in the trustworthy reports 
of Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells, and H. N. Brailsford. V P ts 


COSTS OF THE WAR 


655 


an incalculable number of vitiated constitutions. Almost as 
many more non-combatants were victims of famine or pestilence. 
And the evil runs over into future generations. In all the war¬ 
ring countries in Europe the birthrate has declined alarmingly, 
and the human quality has deteriorated. As to material 
wealth, a huge portion of all that the world had been slowly 
storing up for generations was gone and in many districts all 
machinery for producing wealth was left in ruins. 

Indeed the world.had used up its prospects for long to come. 
Future generations are mortgaged to pay the war debts. Amer¬ 
ica entered the struggle late, and made comparatively little 
sacrifice; but even this country, aside from the immense sums 
raised by war taxes, came out of the struggle with a debt larger 
than the total receipts of its treasury in all its century and a 
half of previous history. England suffered less than, the con¬ 
tinent ; but in England, merely to keep up the interest on the 
debt, along with her old annual expenditure, the nation must 
raise five billions of dollars a year — which means a taxation 
per family of about twenty times that which an average Ameri¬ 
can family paid before the war. The totals of French and Ger¬ 
man indebtedness are so huge as to have little meaning to us. 

This financial distress is tremendously aggravated by dis¬ 
order in the currency of European lands. During the war 
years, or very soon after, nearly all the gold of the world passed 
into America. Most continental countries have no money 
except a terribly depreciated paper money, — money worth 
in Germany and in Austria less than one two-hundredth of its 
face. This demoralizes all industry at home, creates bitter 
suffering for the poor and for people living on salaries and 
other fixed incomes, and of itself it would prevent the re¬ 
vival of foreign trade. 

During the war, the American government lent nine billion dollars 
to the Allies — nearly half of it to England, which country had itself 
lent to France and Italy more than it borrowed from America. Until 
the fall of 1922 no European country had paid any interest even on any 
foreign war debt, and so the total amount due America had risen to 


656 


THE WORLD SINCE THE WAR 


eleven billions; but in October and November of that year England 
paid the United States $100,000,000 on her interest account, and 
agreed to precise terms for future payments. 

England, then, will eventually pay. Many French leaders, however, 
assert that France cannot pay either principal or interest; and there is 
considerable inclination in that country to feel that America should can¬ 
cel the debts due her, as part of her contribution to the war. Mean¬ 
time, France is spending huge amounts on her military establishment, 
and is insisting strenuously — to the general demoralization of world 
industry upon the last penny of the impossible German indemnity. 

The World W ar struck civilization a staggering blow; and 
the heaviest cost was the intangible moral cost. The world 
was exhausted ; and everywhere there was a moral slump. In 
all laige countries the war orgy of profiteering was unchecked, 
or even augmented, with a reckless exploitation of helpless 
multitudes. Everywhere what is called “society” was marked 
by careless self-indulgence and temporary indifference to great 
issues. In the large countries, too, there was a perilous access 
of militarism. National hatreds were more general and intense 
than ever before in world history; and (as in 1914) trade ri¬ 
valries were heaping materials for world conflagration. Ac¬ 
cordingly, in each powerful nation, chemists, engineers, mili¬ 
tary men, in laboratories and in councils, were planning more 
deadly instruments of destruction, while some scientists prophe¬ 
sied that the next war would be chiefly a contest in scattering 

loathsome disease germs from aerial navies over whole conti¬ 
nents. 


Pacific 

questions 


However, one mighty event in particular gives good reason 
to hope that the terrible warning of the World War has not been 
m vain. Two of the great powers suffered little directly from 
that war, — the United States and Japan. Between these two 
there were old causes of irritation ; and the war left them with 
new disputes as to Japan’s relations to China (and to Ameri¬ 
can trade there); as to her control of Pacific cables wrested from 
Germany ; and so on. At once the two countries entered upon 
an open and ominous rivalry in enlarging their navies, on a 


A NAVAL HOLIDAY 


657 


scale never before dreamed of, and in fortifying their Pacific 
possessions. To any one who held in mind the lessons of the 
past, all this indicated at least a serious danger that America 
and Japan might soon drift into another annihilating war — 

which of course would quickly involve the rest of the exhausted 
world. 

Wise statesmanship has removed this petal. Diplomatic 
negotiation of the usual sort was failing to lessen the danger; 
but in the summer of 1921, Mr. Harding, President of the 
United States, called an international conference at Washington 
to consider the limitation of naval armaments and the matters of 
dispute in the Pacific. This Washington Conference was attended 
of course by representatives of England, France, Italy, and 
Japan, and also of four smaller powers with interests in the 
Pacific — China, Portugal, Belgium, and Holland. Charles 
Evans Hughes, the American Secretary of State, presided. 
(China, not unnaturally when one considers her chaotic condi¬ 
tion, was present in the part of a petitioner rather than in that 
of an equal partner in conclusions.) 

The Conference opened November 12, 1921, and continued 
twelve weeks. On the opening day Mr. Hughes took away the 
breath of the world by making public a detailed proposal for 
naval reduction. All building of new ships of war was to stop 
at once — including the huge fleets actually under construction 
— and considerable portions of the navies already in commis¬ 
sion were to be scrapped ; England and the United States 
were to keep an equality of naval power; Japan was to 
keep three fifths that strength (about her existing propor¬ 
tion) ; France and Italy were to have smaller fleets, equal to 
each other; and none of these powers was to lay down any new 
“capital ship” even to replace outgrown vessels, for at least 
ten years. 

Then followed magnificent proof of the value of “open di¬ 
plomacy.” As soon as the amazed world could catch its breath, 
it sent up a joyous and universal acclaim of approval; and 
eventually the proposal was adopted by the Conference without 


The Wash¬ 
ington Con¬ 
ference of 
November, 
1921 


The “ Naval 
holiday ” 


658 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


Friction 

lessened 


i 

Some justice 
for China 


The four- 
power treaty 


essential modification. This arrangement makes it practically 
impossible for any nation to attack another in the Pacific for 
at least ten years, even if it wished to do so — which means a 
breathing spell in which wise statesmanship ought to make 
future war still more unlikely. 1 

And the Conference proceeded to remove many of the 
occasions which might have led to a wish for war. The new 
foi tifications in the Pacific, it was agreed, should be disman¬ 
tled, and garrisons withdrawn. Equality in the use of the 
disputed cables was arranged. Particularly important were 
Japan’s concessions to China. During the World War Japan 
had forced upon that distracted country a series of “treaties” 
by which the aggressive island empire had secured great 
conti ol o\ er internal affairs of its unwieldy neighbor — even 
requiring China to admit Japanese officials into her home ad¬ 
ministration. Japan now surrendered the most offensive of 
these agreements ; and she even promised definitely to with¬ 
draw absolutely from Shantung at the end of five years, upon 
condition that China then pay a reasonable and specified price 
for Japan’s railway improvements there. England restored 
Waihaiwai freely (p. 577). All the powers agreed to an “open 
door” policy in China, and defined what that term should mean ; 
and all promised to make public at once any future treaties 
with that country. Best of all, a permanent international 
confei ence was provided, before which every new Chinese 
complication may be brought promptly for investigation. 

One other notable move for world amity was made. England 
and Japan agreed that it was now unnecessary to renew their 
twenty-year alliance (p. 575), which was about to expire, and 
which many Americans had begun to regard as a menace. 
Then the United States, England, France, and Japan entered 
into an agreement mutually to respect one another’s possessions 
in the Pacific — except that Japan was told plainly that this 


1 The agreement was not to become 
by the home governments of all four. 
France, unhappily, still delays to sign. 


binding upon any power until ratified 
At this writing (February 15, 1923), 


NEW HOPE FOR WORLD PEACE 


659 


agreement did not apply to her recent military occupation of 
Eastern Siberia. 1 

True, some questions failed of adequate solution at Wash¬ 
ington. In particular, the unfortunate attitude of France 
made it impossible to reduce land armaments in Europe or to 
adopt England’s suggestion for restricting the war use of sub¬ 
marines to harbor defense. But the actual accomplishment of 
the Conference is full of promise for the world. It is a splen¬ 
did demonstration of the force of “sweet reasonableness” in 
world problems. History has seen several great conferences of 
victors in war, assembled to dictate haughty terms to the 
vanquished, or even conferences of great powers assembled 
to agree upon division of plunder without war. But here was 
a meeting of a new kind. And it proved that when all govern- 
, ments concerned in a given set of questions can be brought 
together, in friendly and personal fashion, with plenty of time 
before a crisis, to hear one another’s side of the case courteously 
presented, it is hard for any of them to avoid considerable con¬ 
cession to reason and fair play. If such a conference could 
have been assembled in 1914 (as England and France wished), 
even with passions inflamed as they were, there would have 
been no war. 

Americans may justly take pride in their country’s part in 
the Washington Conference. The war had lost to England her 
old lead in naval power. The United States had gained 
that lead; and she was now so much richer than any other 
country that she could at least stand the waste and expense of 
the race in naval preparedness better than any other nation 
could. With peculiar grace, therefore, the proposal for “ a naval 
holiday” came from this country. For America to suggest 
surrendering these “advantages,” was a shining proof of 
willingness to trust in good-will and in a sense of justice, 

1 At the time Japan made no promises in this matter, but apparently 
the attitude of America and England at the Conference has had its effect — 
along perhaps with increasing pressure from the Russian armies. In 
November of 1922 Japan withdrew her last soldier from Siberia. Soon after¬ 
ward, and long before the expiration of the treaty time limit, she withdrew 
her troops from Shantung. 


The power 
of “ reason¬ 
ing together’ ’ 
on world 
problems 


American 

leadership 


660 


NEW EUROPEAN LEAGUES 


Spanish 
America 
tries the 
conference 
method 


Eastern 

Europe 

fails 


New 

European 

alliances 


rather than in violence, for the settlement of international dis¬ 
putes. 

A yeai later, the world saw, on a small scale, another striking 
illustration of the value of this method. In the early winter of 
1923, a congress of delegates from the five Central American 
republics pledged their countries, for a five-year period, to 
maintain no war navies and to decrease their land armies to certain 
specified numbers. This disarmament conference, also, had been 
called with the encouragement of the American government. 

The same month was marked by the failure of a like attempt 
where success might have meant even more to the world. Rus¬ 
sia had gathered into a disarmament conference at Moscow’ dele¬ 
gates from her five new Baltic neighbors along with her own. 
Her suggestion was that each nation reduce its army to one 
fourth its existing strength, with corresponding limits upon 
war budgets, though she professed readiness to consider any* 
modifications of that plan that might be proposed. This con¬ 
ference was wrecked finally by the unwillingness of Poland to 
weaken her army - which the Polish delegate declared to num¬ 
ber 350,000 men, on a peace footing — an army for that bank¬ 
rupt little state three times the size of the United States’ army. 
(Russia claims to have reduced her army to 800,000 men.) 

Poland may have distrusted the good faith of Russia; and, in any 
case, she is probably bound by secret pacts with France to maintain a 
certain army strength. France is bordered by a Germany, which 
though now disarmed and crushed, is still fifty per cent more populous 
than she herself is; and she dreads a future “war of revenge” from 
t, lat Germany, just as Germany had to expect such a war from France 
for fifty years after robbing her in 1871. Moreover, France has been 
oolang, wisely or not, to the German indemnity for salvation from 
threatening national bankruptcy,* and it is plain that, in its present 
form, no considerable part of that indemnity can be collected except 


1 The proposed French budget for 1923, if one leaves out the German 
payments there anticipated, shows a frightful excess of expenditure (lamely 
military) over income, crushing as French taxes are; and the nation's 
paper money is terribly depreciated. And newspaper on February 16 
. -3, announced that France (who does not hesitate to declare herself unable 

f n a P ai - f ° rpa A mg the interest on her three and a half billion 
debt to America ) has just made Poland a loan of 400,000,000 francs 


661 


HOPES FOR A NEW WORLD 

by an army — if even in that way. These conditions explain why 

ranee is so inhospitable toward disarmament proposals (pp. 658-859) 

and why she maintains a much larger military establishment than 
belore the war. 

And, whether by secret treaty (forbidden by the League of Nations) 
or merely by “informal understandings,” Poland is, by the nature of 
the case, a dependent ally of France. France has been the leading 
champion of every extension of Polish territory, just or unjust. Po¬ 
land is useful to France as a possible outpost against Russia, and be¬ 
cause between them they hold Germany as in a vice. On her part, 
Poland feels the need of French protection against possible attempts in 
the future by a recuperated Russia or Germany to recover lost provinces. 
Such “leaguesof hatred” are inevitable results of certain features of the 
peace treaties of 1919. Czechoslovakia and Roumania stand to France 
much as Poland does; while Lithuania, with Hungary and Bulgaria, 
inclines to Germany. Russia and Turkey, too, are probable allies of 
Germany, in case of another general war; and while it may not be 
certain on which side Italy would range herself, it is fairly sure that 
Jugoslavia would be found on the opposite side. 


Some understanding of these perilous rivalries is necessary 
if we are to realize the necessity of a true peace movement. 
Before the close of 1921, in conformity to a strong drift in Eng¬ 
lish public opinion, Lloyd George took the position that some 
revision ought to be made in the terms of the German indem¬ 
nity. (Said he, with an amazing confession of previous failure, 
“We must make peace sometime.”) Ever since the war, how¬ 
ever, the whole order of Europe had seemed to rest mainly on 
the friendly cooperation of England and France in maintaining 
the treaties; and the English nation, however much ready for 
modifications, was far from ready to support a statesman who 
should rashly break that Entente. Still, while the Washington 
Conference was still in session, Lloyd George did succeed in 
inducing his French colleagues in the Allied Council to consent 
to a call for an all-European conference (Germany and Russia 
included), to provide for the economic reconstruction of Europe. 
That conference at Genoa in the spring of 1922, however, and 
two like gatherings later in the year, failed of positive achieve¬ 
ment, because the French government after all refused to meet 


England 
and France 
drift apart 
at new 
European 
conferences 


662 


NEW EUROPEAN LEAGUES 


Fall of 

Lloyd 

George 


France 
seizes the 
Ruhr 


the Russian delegates upon terms of equality or even to listen 
to suggestions for indemnity revision. 

At home, Lloyd George had given out rosy prophecies of suc¬ 
cess; and in the late summer of 1922 his loss of prestige drove 
him from office. In the new parliament, the Conservatives, 
led by Bonar Law, held a large majority; and the Laborites, 
doubling their former strength, displaced the Liberals as the 
chief “opposition” party. The new ministry, though less 
aggressive than its predecessor, showed promptly that it held 
very similar views regarding the indemnity, while the Labor 
party was even more strongly desirous to reduce it. But Eng¬ 
land was growing daily in desperate need of French backing 
against Turkey, if she were to escape either extreme loss and 
humiliation in the East or a costly and unpopular war there; 
and so France felt quite safe against any open break in the 
Entente on the German question, and continued to stand 

uncompromisingly upon her “rights” under the Versailles 
Treaty o 

Then opened the last act in the European tragedy — up to 
this writing (March 16, 1923). On January 15, the Allied 
Council (the English delegate not voting) declared Germany 
m willful default. ” The French army, which had been pre¬ 
paring its military trains for the purpose openly for some days, 
at once seized the Ruhr Valley (the heart of whatever coal and 
steel industry remained to Germany); and the French govern¬ 
ment announced that it would continue military occupation 

until it should have received satisfactory security for complete 
payment. 


i f? r the tW0 months tilat have passed since that seizure, the 
helpless German inhabitants have made a “passive” re¬ 
sistance, refusing, with surprising unanimity, to “cooperate” 
with the invaders. Hotel managers and cafe waiters refuse to 
serve French officers; telephone operators refuse to notice their 
calls; light and power plants cease to operate; railways, mines, 
and factories close down. If this program is persisted in, it 
must soon result in terrible suffering and in widespread starva- 


HOPES FOR A NEW WORLD 663 

tion among the strikers and their families — though perhaps 
no more suffering than would be caused over much wider areas 
by actual war. Meantime the French are punishing the leaders 
of the “passive” movement sternly by military courtmartials. 

In all this, France is acting in accord with the Versailles 
Treaty. It is too soon to predict the outcome. France may 
break the spirit of the German people. She may goad them 
into wild attempts at revolution and hopeless war. She may 
split Germany into fragments. In any case it is not clear how 
she is to win financial profits for herself. 

Surely, whatever unforeseen results may emerge from the 
murk, this method of violence cannot be the final cure for the 
sickness that afflicts Europe. The Washington Conference 
pointed a better way. And for months past, in many parts of 
the world, hopes have found utterance that America may soon 
lead in a new and mightier world conference, to repeat on that 
larger scale the victory of common-sense and good-will over 
ignorance and blind selfishness. To make the world “safe 
for democracy” and “fit for heroes,” to make such a world as 
men of vision taught us to look for through the war clouds, there 
must be built a new world system based not on these old rival¬ 
ries and fears and hatreds, but upon a feeling of human brother¬ 
hood and a will to work for the common good. 

This high enterprise is not to be achieved in an hour; and yet 
it cannot wait long. The call to high school youth, about 
to become active citizens of America and of the world, is to 
complete the work for which their elder brothers died — to 
strive, in paths of peace, for freedom and world righteousness. 
That is the summons voiced just before battle by John 
McRae, one of the countless heroes who offered up life in 
Flanders: — 

In Flanders fields the poppies grow 
Between the crosses, row on row, 

That mark our place; and in the sky 
The larks, still bravely singing, fly, 

Scarce heard amid the din below. 


What shall 
the future 
bring 


664 


A NfW WORLD 


We are the dead. Short days ago 
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, 
Loved and were loved. And now we lie 
In Flanders fields. 

Take up our quarrel with the foe! 

To you, from fallen hands, we throw 
The torch. Be yours to hold it high! 

If ye break faith with us who die 
We shall not sleep, though poppies blow 
In Flanders fields. 


APPENDIX 


A LIST OF BOOKS IN MODERN HISTORY FOR HIGH 

SCHOOLS 

The following titles are classified in two periods, and, under each 
period, in two groups. In the judgment of the writer, all high schools 
should have access to Group I (or an equivalent), while large schools may 
well have Group II also. Works marked with a * should be present in 
more than single copies. Prices are so uncertain at this time (1919) 
that no attempt is made to state them. 

A. TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 
Group I 

Source Material. 

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Bohn edition). 

Chronicles of the Crusades (Bohn Library). 

* Davis, W. S., Readings in Ancient History, II. Allyn and Bacon. 
Einhard, Charlemagne. American Book Co. 

English History from Contemporary Writers, edited by F. York-Powell. 
A series of ten small volumes, published from 1886 to 1894 by 
Putnam, as follows : Archer, Crusade of Richard I; Ashley, Edward 
III and His Wars; Barnard, Stronghow's Conquest of Ireland; 
Hutton, Misrule of Henry III; Simon of Montfort; St. Thomas 
of Canterbury; Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England; Powell, 
Alfred and the Danes; Smith, Troublous Days of Richard II. 

Hill, Mabel, Liberty Documents. Longmans. 

Joinville, Memoir of St. Louis. (Various editions.) 

Lanier (editor), The Boy's Froissart. Scribner.. 

Lee, Source Book of English History. Holt. 

Marco Polo, The Story of, edited by Noah Brooks. Century Co. 

Ogg, F. A., Source Book of Medieval History. Am. Book Co. 
Pennsylvania Translations and Reprints from Original Sources. 7 vols. 
University of Pennsylvania. 

♦Robinson, J. H., Readings in European History. 2 vols. Ginn. 
Modern Accounts. 

* Adams, G. B., Growth of the French Nation. Macmillan. 

* - Civilization during the Middle Ages. Scribner. 



2 


APPENDIX 


* Archer and Kingsford, The Crusades (“ Nations ”). Putnam. 
Balzani, Popes and Hohenstaufen. Longmans. 

Beard, Charles, An Introduction to English Historians (extracts from 
leading authorities on interesting topics). Macmillan. 

Beesly, E. S., Elizabeth (“ English Statesmen ”). Macmillan. 

Boyeson, H. H., Norway (“ Nations ”). Putnam. 

Bradley, Wolfe. Macmillan. 

Brown, Horatio, The Venetian Republic (“Temple Primers ”). Mac¬ 
millan. 

* Bryce, James, Holy Roman Empire. Macmillan. 

* Cheyney, E. P., Industrial and Social History of England. Mac¬ 

millan. 

Church, Beginnings of the Middle Ages (“ Epochs ”). Longmans. 
Clemens (Mark Twain), Joan of Arc. Harper. 

Cornish, F. W., Chivalry. Macmillan. 

Cox, G. W., The Crusades (“ Epochs ”). Longmans. 

Creighton, M., Age of Elizabeth (“ Epochs ”). Longmans. 
Cunningham, Western Civilization (Vol. II, Medieval and Modern). 
Macmillan. 

Cunningham and McArthur, Outlines of English Industrial History. 
Macmillan. 

Davis, H. W. C., Charlemagne (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

* Emerton, Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages. Ginn. 

- Medieval Europe. Ginn. 

Firth, Cromwell (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Gardiner, S. R., Student's History of England. Longmans. 

- The Puritan Revolution (“ Epochs ”). Longmans. 

- The Thirty Years’ War (“Epochs”). Longmans. 

Gibbins, Industrial History of England. Methuen ; London. 

Gilman, The Saracens (“ Nations ”). Putnam. 

Gray, The Children's Crusade. Houghton. 

* Green, J. R., History of the English People. 4 vols. Burt; New 

York. 

Or, in place of this last work, 

* Green, J. R., Short History of the English People. Am. Book Co. 
Green, Mrs., Henry II. Macmillan. 

Hughes, Thomas, Alfred the Great. Macmillan. 

Jenks, Edward Plantagenet (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Jessopp, The Coming of the Friars. Putnam. 

Jiriczek, Northern Hero Legends. Macmillan. 

Johnston, C., and Spencer, C., Ireland’s Story. Houghton. 

Lane-Poole, Saladin (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Lindsay, T. M., Luther and the German Reformation. Scribner. 





APPENDIX 


3 


Masterman, J. H. B., Dawn of Medieval Europe (“ Six Ages ”). Mac¬ 
millan. 

Motley, The Student’s Motley, — the best history of the Dutch Republic 
in its heroic age ) edited by Griffis. Harper. 

Mullinger, University of Cambridge. Longmans. 

Oman, C. W. C., Byzantine Empire (“ Nations ”). Putnam. 

Pears, E., Fall of Constantinople. Harper. 

Perry, F., St. Louis (“ Heroes ”)• Putnam. 

Pollard, History of England (“ Home University ”). Holt. 

* Shepherd, W. R., Historical Atlas. Holt. 

Stubbs, Early Plantagenets (“ Epochs ”). Longmans. 

Tout, T. F., Edward I. Macmillan. 

Van Dyke, History of Painting. New York. 

Walker, W., The Reformation. Scribner. 

Ward, The Counter-Reformation. Longmans. 

Willert, Henry of Navarre (“ Heroes ”)• Putnam. 

Woodward, W. H., Expansion of the British Empire, 1500-1902. Put¬ 
nam. 

Zimmern, H., The Hansa (“ Nations ”)• Putnam. 

Group II 

Ashley, Introduction to English Economic History. Vol. I, Part I. 
Longmans. 

Beard, Martin Luther. London. 

Beazley, Prince Henry the Navigator (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Bourne, E. G., Spain in America (Am. Nation Series). Harper. 
Bradley, Wolfe. Macmillan. 

Caldecott, Alfred. English Colonization and Empire. (University Ex¬ 
tension Manuals.) New York. 

Cutts, Parish Priests and their People. London. 

- Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages. New York. 

Du Chaillu, The Viking Age. 2 vols. Murray. 

Fletcher, Gustavus Adolphus (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Fox-Bourne, Sir Philip Sidney (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Gasquet, F. A., Parish Life in Medieval England. New York. 

Harrison, F., William the Silent. Macmillan. 

Henderson, E., Short History of Germany. 2 vols. in one. Mac¬ 
millan. 

Hodgkin, T., Charles the Great. Macmillan. 

James, G. P. R., History of Chivalry. Harper. 

Jusserand, English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages. London. 

Keary, The Vikings in Western Christendom. Putnam. 



4 


APPENDIX 


Liibke, History of Art. 2 vols. Dodd and Mead. 

McCabe, Abelard. Putnam. 

Morison, Life and Times of St. Bernard. Macmillan. 

Parkman, Francis, New France, Half Century of Conflict, Montcalm 
and Wolfe. Little, Brown, and Co. 

Putnam, Ruth, Books and Their Makers in the Middle Ages. Putnam. 
Robinson and Rolfe, Petrarch. Putnam. 

Sabatier, St. Francis. Scribner. 

Saintsbury, Flourishing of Romance. Scribner. 

Seeley, Expansion of England. Macmillan. 

Smith, J. H., The Troubadours at Home. Putnam. 

Stephens, W. R. W., Hildebrand and His Times. Longmans. 

Storrs, Bernard of Clairvaux. Scribner. 

Story of the Burnt Njal (Dassent, translator). New York. 

Symonds, J. A., Short History of the Renaissance in Italy (Edited by 
Pearson). Scribner. 

Vincent, The Age of Hildebrand. Scribner. 

Wiel, Venice (“ Nations ”). Putnam. 

York-Powell, Alfred the Truth-Teller. Putnam. 

B. FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTION TO THE PRESENT 

TIME 

Group I 

Source Material. 

* Anderson, F. M., Constitutions and Other Documents Illustrative of the 

History of France, 1789-1907. H. W. Wilson Co.; New York. 
Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History (1650- 
1908). 2 vols. Ginn. 

Modern Accounts. 

Andrews, C. M., Historical Development of Modern Europe. (From 
1815 to 1897.) Putnam. * 

Barker, J. E., Modern Germany. London. 

Cesaresco, Cavour. Macmillan. 

Crawford, Switzerland To-day (1911). New York. 

* Gardiner, Mrs. B. M., French Revolution (“Epochs”). Longmans. 
Gibbons, H. A., New Map of Europe (1911-1914). The Century Co. 
- World Politics (1922). The Century Co. 

Gibbs, Philip. Now It Can Be Told. 

Hayes, Carlton, Modern Europe. 2 vols. Macmillan. (Vol. II covers 
1815-1915.) 

- The World War. Macmillan. 

** Hazen, C. D., Europe since 1815. Holt. 




APPENDIX 


5 


Headlam, J. W., Bismarck (“ Heroes ”). Putnam. 

Loreburn, How the War Came. London, 1919. 

Lowell, E. J., Eve of the French Revolution. Houghton. 

McCarthy, Justin, Epoch of Reform, 1830-1850 (“ Epochs Lone- 
mans. 

Mathews, Shailer, French Revolution. Longmans. 

Ogg, F. A., Social Progress in Contemporary Europe. (An admirable 
brief survey from 1789 to 1912.) Macmillan. 

* Phillips, W. A., Modern Europe ( 1815-1900 ). Macmillan. 

Ransome, Arthur, Russia in 1919. 

Robertson, William Spence, History of the Latin American Nations 
(1922). Appleton. 

Robins, Raymond, Colonel Robins' Story (of Bolshevist Russia); edited 
by William Hard. 

Rose, J. H., Life of Napoleon I. 2 vols. in one. Macmillan. 

* Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era. Cambridge Press. 

* - Rise of Democracy in Great Britain. New York. 

Schevill, F., History of the Balkan Peninsula (1922). Harcourt, Brace 
& Co. 

Spargo, John, Elements of Socialism. Macmillan. 

- Bolshevism. Macmillan. 

Group II 

Carlyle, The French Revolution. 3 vols. Putnam. 

Hannay, Castelar. Macmillan. 

Kerr, P. H. and A. C., Growth of the British Empire. Longmans. 

King, Bolton, History of Italian Unity, 1814-1871. Scribner. 

Kirkup, T., History of Socialism. Macmillan. 

Lloyd, A Sovereign People (Switzerland). New York. 

McCarthy, Justin, England in the Nineteenth Century. Putnam. 
McCarthy, J. H., England under Gladstone. London. 

Nevison, Dawn in Russia. New York. 

Russell, German Social Democracy. Longmans. 

Seignobos, Europe since 1814- Holt. 

Skrine, Expansion of Russia (“ Cambridge Series ”). Cambridge 
Press. 

Stephens, H. Morse, The French Revolution. Scribner. 

- Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815. Macmillan. 

Stillman, W. J., The Union of Italy, 1815-1895 (“ Cambridge Series ”). 
Cambridge Press. 

Wallace (and others), Progress of the Century (Nineteenth). Harper. 
Warshaw, J., The New Latin America. Crowell Company, New York. 
Willert, Mirabeau. Macmillan. 







INDEX 


Pronunciation, except for familiar names and terms is shown ht 
division into syllables and accentuation. When diacritical mn l- f '' 

are 8 are needed > the common marks of Webster’s Dictionarie' 

"perf^tlv tHh 11 “1 FrenCh P “ ati0 " «“ ^ mdicatd on" 
imperfectly to those who are not familiar with the languages- but 

attention is called to the following marks: the soft aspirated gu’ttura 
S °ma d rked K t he er so an f ° \ ^ 

is marked K the sound of the nasal French n is marked n- for the 

^hTJishl * ‘s he a, eqUiV t n P ^ indiCat6d ’ t0 preTCnt infusion 
tetter or the' pn, , Tv G u eman lettCT; and « is the German 

accent on the final syllable, thITaccent only temarked^but iTshouW 
equal* stress ° d ^ “ SUCh W ° rdS ““ SyllaWes aS a rule ’ recei ™ nearlj 


Aachen (ax'en), 47, 54, 56; map 
after 48. 

Aor-gau', 546; map, 122. 

Abbey, defined, 36. 

Ab'e-lard, Peter, 100. 

Absolutism, explained, 19. 
Ab-ys-sin'i-a, and Italy, 527; one 
of the two independent African 
states, 572; map facing 572. 
A-crop'o-lis, Athenian, 11. 

Act of Settlement (English), 213. 
Administrative Courts, in France, 
497-8; in German Empire, 508; 
in Italy, 525. 

Ad-ri-an-o'ple, Visigothic victory 
at, 28; reoccupied by Turks in 
1913, 596; and in 1923, 646. 
Adriatic Sea, dividing line between 
Greek and Latin civilizations 


in Roman Empire, 17 and note; 
between Roman-Teutonic and 
Greek-Slav Europe, 29; between 
Holy Roman and Greek empires 
48, 51. 

Aes'chyl-us, 345. 

Af-ghan-is-tan', Russian advance 
in, after 1870, 552. 

Africa, partition after 1884, 572; 
after World War, 643. See 
Egypt, Cape Colony, South Africa; 
map for 1914, after 572. 

Agriculture, under Roman Empire, 
large holdings, serfdom, etc., 18, 
23; in Feudal age, 67-9; rev¬ 
olution in, in England (inclosures 
for sheep farming), 182-3; in 
France before Revolution, 254, 
257; as affected by “ Industrial 


7 







8 


INDEX 


Revolution ” in England, 353- 
5, 378-80; in France to-day, 
499; in Denmark, 540-1; coop¬ 
erative, 541. 

Airplanes, 563, 567; in war, 611, 
613, 628. 

Aisne (ane), map facing 633; Bat¬ 
tle of the, 626. 

Al-bani-a, 590-1; Kingdom of, 
595; in League of Nations, 650; 
map, 595. 

Albert, King of Belgium, 606. 

Al-bi-gen'ses, 150, 151. 

Alexander “ the Great,” 10. 

Alexandria in Egypt, under Rome, 
12, 13; Patriarchate of, 26; con¬ 
quered by Saracens, 43. 

Al'chem-y, 90, 101, 103. 

Alfred the Great, 59. 

Al-ge'ri-a, and France, 501-2. 

Al'lah, term explained, 39. 

“ Allied Council ” (after World 
War), 638, 660, and plate facing 
649. 

Alphabet. See Writing. 

Al -sage', annexed by France, 177; 
serfdom in, in 1789, 254; seized 
by Germany in 1871, 486; 

under German rule, 506-9; and 
the Fourteen Points, 632; re¬ 
stored to France, 637. 

Al-va, Duke of, 167. 

America, discovery, 217-20; effect 
upon Europe, 217, 221; Spain’s 
failure in, 221-2; France’s fail¬ 
ure, 223-5; English success in, 
225-6, 243-5. See American 

Revolution and United States. 

American Revolution, 246-7; and 
Rousseau, 262; and French 
Revolution, 265, 267, 271; and 
English reform, 428. 


Amiens (am-yafi'), 136; Peace of, 
315; map facing 633. 

Ancient History, review of, to 
1520 a.d., 1-137. 

Andrea del Sarto, 132. 

An-es-thet'ics, lack of, 353; dis¬ 
covery, 368. 

Angles, in Britain, 28, 56, 57. 

Anglo-Jap Treaty of 1902, 575; 
not renewed, 658. See Four- 
Power Treaty. 

Anne Boleyn (bool'in), 153, 154. 

Anzacs, 609 and note. 

Aquitaine (a-kwl-tan'), 38, 41. 

Arabia, before Mohammed, 38; 
modern kingdom (Hejaz), 645. 

Arabic Notation, 90, 94. 

Arbitration. See International 
Arbitration. 

Arc, Joan of, 114. 

Archbishops, origin, 25 ; in Middle 
Ages, 74. 

Architecture, Greek, 9 ; Saracenic, 
89; Romanesque, 104; Gothic, 
102-4. 

Argentina, 585, 586-7. 

Ar-go-bast', devises metric sys¬ 
tem, 301. 

Ar-gonne', American troops in, 
636; map facing 633. 

Ar-is-tot'le, authority in Middle 
Ages, 100; on sphericity of the 
earth, 218. 

Arkwright, Richard, 358. 

Armada, Spanish, 163, 168; and 

America, 222. 

Armaments, increase after 1871, 
583-4, 596. See Disarmament. 

Armenian Massacres, by Turks, in 
1894-1895, 521-2. 

Ashley, Lord (Shaftesbury), and 
Factory acts, 378, 450, 451. 





INDEX 


9 


of 1848, 393 ff. ; conglomerate 
character, 393, 529 ; Francis 
Joseph’s repudiation of liberal 
promises, 394 ; repression and 
race jealousies, 394-395 ; and 
Italy, 399-400 ; restores old 
system in Germany after 1848, 
397-398 ; tricked by Bismarck 
into Danish War, 417 ; intro¬ 
duction of parliamentary govern¬ 
ment after defeat by France 
and Italy in 1859, 529-530 ; 
and Six Weeks’ War, 417 ; ex¬ 
cluded from Germany, 418 ; 
reorganized as Austria-Hungary, 
which see. 

Austria-Hungary, dual monarchy, 
organized, 529-530 ; history 
(1867-1914), 530 ff. ; and Triple 
Alliance, 568-569 ; ambitions 
in Balkans, 593, 594-595 ; an¬ 
nexes Bosnia, 595 ; anti-Serb 
feeling, 598 ; see World War; 
armistice and revolution, 661 ; 
stern peace and dissolution, 677, 
690. 

Avignon (a-ven-y6n), Papacy at, 
116. 

“ Babylonian Captivity ” of the 
Church, at Avignon, 116-117. 

Babylonians, 4-6. 

Bacon, Francis, and experimental 
method, 179. 

Bacon, Roger, 103-104 ; question 
as to reaching Asia by sailing 
west, 218 ; and mariner’s com¬ 
pass, 221 ; prophecy of steam 
as motive power, 362-363. 

Bagdad (Berlin to Bagdad Rail¬ 
road), 597. 

“ Balance of Power ” theory, 279 ; 
and wars to maintain, 230 ff. 


Balkans, the, 590—598. See Serbia 
and other states. 

Balkan Wars, 1912-1913, 596-598. 
Ball, John, 108. 

Barbarian Invasions, fourth cen¬ 
tury, etc., 27 ff. ; after Charle¬ 
magne, 55-56; see Slavs, Moors, 
Norsemen; as a cause of feudal¬ 
ism, 59 ff. 

Bastille (bas-teel'), overthrow and 
celebration of, 272-273. 

Batavian Republic, 305, 319. 

Battle, Trial by, 32, 33. 

Beet Sugar, invention, 317. 

Bela Kun, 676. 

Belfort, saved to France in 1871, 
486. 

Belgium (see Netherlands for, until 
1798), annexed to France in 
1794, 305 ; given to Holland 
by Congress of Vienna, 328, 332 ; 
independent in 1830, 350 ; pro¬ 
tected and neutralized, 351 ; 
constitution, 537-538 ; fran¬ 
chise, 538 ; kulturkampf in, 
538-539 ; and World War, 539, 
610 ff. 

Belleau (b8l-lo') Wood, Battle of, 

658. 

“ Benefit of Clergy,” 73-74. 

“ Benevolences,” as source of 
royal revenue, 192, 193. 

“ Benevolent Despots,” the, and 
failure, 250-251. 

Berlin, Congress of (1878), 458, 
593. 

“ Berlin to Bagdad,” 597. 

Bessarabia, 590. 

Bethmann-Hollweg, Chancellor, 
611 and passim. 

Bible, the English, 154. 

Bill of Rights, the English, 209- 
210 . 











10 


INDEX 


Bishop, origin, 25 ; in Middle 
Ages, 72-73. 

Bismarck, Otto von, in 1848, 396 ; 
and making of Germany, 414 ff. ; 
moral judgment upon, 423- 
424 ; duplicity in matter of 
Tunis, 503 ; develops policy of 
German Empire (1871-1890), 
514-520 ; and Socialism, 515- 
517 ; and the frontier peoples, 
518-519 ; and colonies, 519- 
520 ; fall, 520 ; and Triple 
Alliance, 568-569. 

Black Death, the, 106-107. 

Black Hole, the, at Calcutta, 244. 

Blanc, Louis, 387, 389. 

Blen'heim, Battle of, 233. 

Blucher (blii'Ker), at Waterloo, 
331. 

Boccacio (bSk-kat'cho), 131. 

Boche (epithet for German), 676. 

Boers, and England, 474. 

Bohemia, Hussites in, 117-118, 
175 ; and Thirty Years’ War, 
175-176 ; held to Catholicism, 
177 ; and Revolution of 1848, 
393-394. See Czecho-Slavs. 

Bolsheviki (bol-shg-vi'ke), vic¬ 
tory of, 645 ; and Brest-Litovsk, 
653-656 ; Socialist practice, 

691 ; not a democracy, 691- 

692 ; victory over “ emigrants ” 
and reactionaries and Allied 
blockade, 692-694. 

Bonaparte. See Napoleon. 

Boniface VIII, 115-116. 

Borgia (Alexander VI), 118. 

Bosnia, annexed by Austria, 561, 
595 ; history to that time, 591, 
593 ; part of new South Slav 
state, 677. 

Boulogne (boo-lon'), Napoleon at, 
316 ; and Robert Fulton, 364. 


Boyne, Battle of, 461. 

BrandenbiirG, Mark of, origin, 87 ; 
growth into Electorate, 240 ; 
acquired by Hohenzollerns, 240 ; 
under Great Elector, merged in 
Prussia, 241 ; which see. 

Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of, 653-655. 

Bright, John, and Corn Law re¬ 
peal, 454-455. 

Britain, becomes England, 56-58. 

Bronze Age, the, 47. 

Brooke, Lord, and free thought, 
206. 

Browning, Elizabeth Barrett, and 

child labor, 378, 450. 

Browning, Robert, 441. 

Brunswick, Duke of, proclamation 
against France, 290. 

Bulgarians, history to 1800, 591- 
592 ; see Balkans and Balkan 
Wars; join Teutons in World 
War, 622 ff. ; collapse and 
armistice, 660 ; peace treaty, 
690. 

Bull, papal, term explained, 74. 

Bundesrath (boon'd6s-rat), 505. 

Bunyan, John, 207. 

Byron, Lord, 345, 441. 

Byzant (bS'sant), the, 90. 

Cabinet government, in England, 

development, 429-435 ; con¬ 
trasted with American “ Presi¬ 
dential ” government, 435 ff. 

Cahiers (ka-ya'), 271, note. 

Caliph, term explained, 42, note. 

Calonne (ka-lon'), 265. 

Calvin, John, 147 ff. ; andServetus, 
148. 

Calvinism, 145-148. See Hugue¬ 
nots, Presbyterianism. 

Cambarceres (kam-bar-cSr-a/), 301. 

Cambon (kom-bon'), 296. 



INDEX 


11 


Campo Formio, Peace of, 305. 
Canada, home rule in 1837, 470 ; 
Dominion of, 473 ; loyalty to 
England, 475 ; in World War, 
475. 

Canals, and locks, 356. 

Canning, and Spanish America, 
344-345. 

Cape Colony, 328. See South 
Africa. 

Capet (ka-pa'), Hugh, 85. 

Capetian kings, 85. 

Capitalism, and Industrial Revolu¬ 
tion, 372 ff. 

Car-bo-na'ri, 341. 

Carlyle, Thomas, 441, 450. 

Car-noC, “ Organizer of Victory,” 
296, 297, 298. 

Car-o-lin'gi-ans, 85 ; degenerate, 
34 ff. 

Cartwright, Edmund, and power 
loom, 360. 

Cas'te-lar, 532-533. 

Catherine of Aragon, 153. 

Catherine of Medici (ma'dg-che), 
172. 

Cavaliers, the English, 201. 

Cavour (ka-voor'), 409, 410-411, 
412-413. 

Celt, term, 56, note. 

Centralization, in government, ex¬ 
plained, 19. 

Chambord (shon-bor'), Count of, 
492. 

Champs de Mars (shon de marce), 
Massacre of, 279. 

Charlemagne (sharl'man), name, 

46 ; achievements, 46-47 ; re¬ 
stores Roman Empire in the 
West, 47-48 ; character of civi¬ 
lization under, 48-49 ; attempts 
to revive learning, 49-50 ; place 
in history, 50-51 ; death, 54. 


Charles I, of England, 191, 203. 
Charles II, of England, 203, 205, 
207. 

Charles VIII, of France, 126. 
Charles X, of France, 347-349. 
Charles I, of Spain, and Charles V 
of Holy Roman Empire, 126 
128, 141-145. 

Charles XII, of Sweden, 238. 
Charles Albert, of Sardinia, 399, 
400, 408. 

Charles Martel (mar-tgl'), 38, 41- 
42. 

Chartists, in England, 444-445. 
Chateau-Thierry (sha-to' tyar'ry), 
Battle of, 658. 

Chaucer, 104, 107, 139. 

Child Labor, in America in 1800, 
375, 376 ; in England in 1800, 
377-378 ; factory act of 1833, 
451 ; later legislation, 452. 

China, and American “ open door ” 
policy, 554-555 ; war with 
Japan, 555 ; seizure of ports 
by Germany and other European 
Powers, 556 ; Boxer Rebellion, 
556 ; and Russ-Jap War, 559 ; 
a Republic, 561—562 ,* growing 
militarism, 562 ; enters World 
War, 688 ; loss of Shantung, 
688 ; refuses to sign treaty, 689. 
Christianity, rise under Roman 
Empire, 25-26. See Roman 
Catholic Church, Reformation, 
and names of sects. 

Church of England, origin, 153- 
157 ; becomes Protestant under 
Edward VI, 158 ; persecution 
of Catholics, 158 ; Catholicism 
restored under Mary Tudor, 
159 ff. ; finally Protestant under 
Elizabeth, 192 ff. ; Presbyterian 
in Civil War, 202 ; Episcopacy 








12 


INDEX 


restored at Stuart Restoration, 
207 ; persecution of dissenters, 
207 ff. ; and Methodist move¬ 
ment, 215 ; disestablished in 
Ireland, 457 ; in Wales, 482. 

Churchill, Winston, 477, 479. 

Cid, Song of, 104. 

Circuit Judges, origin in England, 
79. 

Clemenceau, “the Tiger,” 501, 
650, 679 ff. 

Clermont, the, of Fulton, 364, 365. 

Clive, Robert, 243-244. 

Clovis, 37. 

Cobden, Richard, 454. 

Code Napoleon, the, 312. 

Colonial Federation, 473-474. See 
Imperial Federation. 

Columbus, Christopher, 218, 220, 
221 . 

Common Law, the English, origin, 
79. 

Commune of Paris, in French 
Revolution, 274 ; in 1871, 486- 
489. 

Compurgation, Trial by, 33. 

Concordat, Napoleon’s, 311, 312. 

Con-dot-ti-er'i, 132. 

Congo Free State, 552, 553. 

Constance, Council of, 117-118. 

Constantine, Roman Emperor, and 
Christianity, 25. 

Constantine Palaeologus (pa- 
le-o'lo-gus), 121. 

Constantinople, conquered by 
Turks, 121. 

Continental System, of Napoleon, 
317-318 ; failure, 324. 

Co-per'ni-cus, 178. 

Corneille (kor-na'y), 234. 

Corn Laws, English, and repeal, 
453, 454. 

Correggio (kbr-Sd'jo), 132. 


Cotton Gin, 360. 

Counter-Reformation, the, 149 ff. 

Coup d’etat (koo d6-ta'), explained, 
309, note ; of Napoleon I, 309 : 
of Napoleon III, 403. 

Cranmer, Archbishop, 154, 159. 

Crecy (kres'si), Battle of, 106. 

Cretan civilization, 6-7. 

Crete, ceded by Turkey to Greece, 
522. 

Cri-me'an War, 406 ; and Cavour, 
409. 

Crompton, Samuel, and the 
“ mule,” 358, 359. 

Cromwell, Oliver, 201-205. 

Crusades, 92-94 ; and results, 
93-94. 

Crystal Palace Exhibition, 456. 

Custozza (koos-tod'za), Battle of 
400. 

Czechs (chSks). See Bohemia. 

Czecho-Slav Republic, 677. 

Daguerre (da-gSr'), 368. 

Dane-law (or Danelagh), 59. 

Danes. See Norsemen. 

Danish War, of 1864, 416. 

Dante (dan'te), 104; and im¬ 
perial idea, 125. 

Danton (don-ton'), 286-287, 291- 
292, 295, 302. 

Danzio, a “ free ” city, 687. 

“Dark Ages,” the, defined, 29; 
everyday life in, 34-36, 128. 
See Feudalism. 

Darwin, Charles, 441. 

Den'e-kin, Russian general, 692- 
693. 

Denmark, Danish war, 416 ; to¬ 
day, 540-541. 

Desmoulins (da-moo-l&n'), Camille 
(ka-mel'),*272, 302. 

Dickens, Charles, 441, 450. 








INDEX 


13 


Diderot (de-dro'), 261. 

Di-6-cle'ti-an, Emperor, reforms, 
19. 

Directory, the (1795-1799), 304- 
309. 

“ Disestablishment ” in Ireland 
and Wales. See Church of Eng¬ 
land. 

Disraeli (diz-ra'li), Benjamin, 442, 
445, 458. 

“ Divine Right,” theory of, pro¬ 
claimed in England by Stuarts, 
188 ff. 

Domestic System, in manufac¬ 
tures, 185, 371. 

Donation of Pippin, 45, 46. 

“ Do-nothing Kings,” 37, 45. 

Dragonades of Louis XIV, 231. 

Drake, Sir Francis, 163, 225, 226, 
227. 

Dreyfus Trial, the, 498, note. 

Dual Alliance, the, 569 ; becomes 
Triple Entente, 570. 

Dumouriez (dob-mbo're-a'), 294. 

Duns the Scot, 101. 

Duodecimal System, from Baby¬ 
lonia, 6. 

Duplex (du-pla/), 242, 244. 

Dutch Republic. See Holland. 

Economics, term, 63, note 

Edgar the Peaceful, 59. 

Edward I, of England, 83. 

Edward II, deposed, 105. 

Edward III, 105. 

Edward VI, 157-158. 

Egbert, of Wessex, 59. 

Egypt, home of Bronze civiliza¬ 
tion, 4 ; contributions to civiliza¬ 
tion, 4-6 ; modern, under Eng¬ 
land, 468-469, 502 ; demand for 
independence, 502. 

Eisner, Kurt, 676. 


“ Electors,” the seven of the Holy 
Roman Empire, 141, note. 

Electricity, Age of, 563-564. 

Eliot, Sir John, 191 ; and “ re¬ 
sponsible government,” 191- 
192 ; resolutions of 1629, 195 ; 
death, 196. 

Elizabeth, of England, 160 ff. ; 

policy, 161 ; and Spain, 163- 
164 ; and Elizabethan Renais¬ 
sance, 164-165. 

Elizabethan Renaissance, 164-165. 

Emmet, Robert, 462. 

Empire, term explained, 47, note. 

Employers’ Liability. See Social 
Insurance. 

Ems Dispatch, the, 421. 

Encyclopedists, the, 261, 262. 

England, conquered by Teutons, 
56 ff. ; Teutonic states in, 56 ; 
conquest slow and thorough, 57 ; 
name explained, 56 ; Saxon 
England and local institutions, 
76-77 ; Norman Conquest, 77 ; 
Norman organization, 77 ; 
Henry II and Europe, 79 ; 
and development of Common 
Law, 79 ; beginnings of Parlia¬ 
ment, 80-85 ; Hundred Years’ 
War, 105 ff. ; Reformation in, 
153 ff. ; and Spain, 163 ; Eliza¬ 
bethan Renaissance, 164-165 ; 
and conquest of Ireland, 164 ; 
review for changes of 1450- 
1600 (inclosures and manufac¬ 
tures), 181-184 ; and the Puri¬ 
tans, 186 ff. ; and the Stuarts, 
187 ff. ; Civil War, 198-206 ; 
Stuart Restoration, 205 ff. ; 
Revolution of 1688, 209 ff. ; 
political gains of, 211 ff. ; be¬ 
ginnings of ministerial govern¬ 
ment, 212 ; under the Georges, 




14 


INDEX 


214 ; in eighteenth century, 
214-215 ; becomes Great 
Britain, 215-216 ; in America, 
225 ff. ; and Louis XIV, 231 ff. ; 
wins India, 243-244 ; and 
Canada, 245 ; wars of French 
Revolution, which see ) gains 
at Congress of Vienna, 328-329 ; 
protests against Holy Alliance 
intervening in Spanish America, 
342-345 ; growth of towns after 
Industrial Revolution, 374-375 ; 
conditions of factory towns about 
1800, 375 ; inclosures after 1760, 
3/8—380 ; political reaction in 
eighteenth century, 425-428 ; 
and American Revolution, 428 ; 
reaction intensified after Na¬ 
poleonic Wars, 429-430 ; slow 
gains after 1821, 430 ; First 
Reform Bill, 431-433 ; Lords 
take second place, 434 ) minis¬ 
terial government discussed, 434- 
438 ; Victorian Age, 439 ff. ; 
era of social reform after 1832, 
441 ff. ; political administra¬ 
tions, 441-442 ; Disraeli and 
Gladstone, 442-443 ; trade 
union movement, 443 ; Chart¬ 
ists, 444 ; Second Reform Bill 
(1867), 445-446 ; Third (1884), 
446 ) ballot and other reforms, 
446-447 ; local government re¬ 
form, 447 ff. ; social reform in 
Victorian Age, 450, 464 ; free 
trade, 455 ) Gladstone’s reforms 
(1868-1874), 456-457 ; and Irish 
“ Home Rule ” agitation, to 
1884, 462-464 ; colonies, etc., 
465-475 ; reform since 1905, 
476-482 ; Lloyd George’s bud¬ 
get of 1909, 478-480 ; Fourth 
Parliamentary Reform Bill 


(1914-1919), 483, 484 ; “ Votes 
for Women,” 483-484 ; with¬ 
draws from supporting Turkey, 
522 ; in Africa after 1884, 553- 
554 ) Home Rule in 1914 and 
after, 582—583. See World War 
and Peace Congress. 

E-ras'mus, 133-134 ; and the 
Reformation, 133, 137. 

Factory Acts, 451, 452, 479. 

Factory System, 372 ff. 

Falconry, 69, 70. 

Ferdinand of Aragon, 121, 126-128. 

Ferrer, Francisco, 536. 

Feudalism, 54 ff. ; result of 
anarchy, 59-60 ; terms (fief, 
etc.), 60, 63-64 ; origin of 

feudal privileges, 60-61 ; castles, 
61-62 ; men-at-arms and armor, 
61-62 ; “ decentralization,” 62 ; 
landholding, 63-64 ; lords and 
vassals, 64 ; private war, 65 ; 
and the workers, 65-70 ; life of 
the fighters, 70—72 ; learning 
and art, 99-100 ; crushed in 
England by Wars of Roses and 
New Monarchy, 113 ; Age of 
(divisions), 128-129 ; and gun¬ 
powder, 134 ; survives on Conti¬ 
nent until 1848, 392. 

Finland, Swedish, in ninth cen¬ 
tury, 55 ; part seized by Russia, 
239 ; all ceded to Russia in 
1814, 329 ; Russianized, 583 ; 
new self-government in 1906, 
589 ; woman suffrage, 589 ; 
World War (independence), 677. 

Firemaking, stages in, 3-4. 

First Reform Bill (English), 431- 
433. 

Fiske, John, on England’s coloniza* 
tion, 246. 





INDEX 


15 


Fist-hatchet, 3. 

Fitch, John, and steamboat, 364. 

Fiume (fu-ma/), 684. 

Foch (fosh), Ferdinand, 615, 656, 
659, 683. 

Fortescue, Sir John, 112, 181-182. 

Fourier (fou-ri-a/), 382. 

Fourteen Points, the, of Woodrow 
Wilson, 652-653 ; ignored in 
Peace Congress, 689. 

France, political beginning in Ver¬ 
dun partition, 54-55 ; later 
Carolingians, 85 ; made by 
Capetian kings, 85-86 ; con¬ 
trast with English history, 86 ; 
Hundred Years’ War, 105 ff. ; 
new patriotism and strong mon¬ 
archy, 114 ; first power in 
Europe, 115 ; wars for Italy, 
126, 128, 143 ; Huguenots, 

145 ff. ; gains Metz, 145 ; 
threatened by two Hapsburg 
powers, 145 ; w^ars of Hugue¬ 
nots and Catholics, 172-173 ; 
under Henry IV, 173-174 ; and 
Richelieu, 174 ; annexes Alsace, 
177 ; in America, 222 ff. ; 
threatens balance of power, 
229 ff. ; Age of Louis XIV, 
230-234 ; seizes Rhine districts 
and Strassburg, 231 ; horrible 
war methods, 232 ; loses in 
America and Asia, 233 ; crushed 
by war taxes, 233 ; intellectual 
leadership, 233-234 ; loses 
America and India to England, 
244-245 ; fatal weakness in 
America, 245 ; see French Revo¬ 
lution and Napoleon; terms of 
peace in 1814, 325 ; and Con¬ 
gress of Vienna, 329 ; the 
Hundred Days, 330-331 ; terms 
in 1815, 331 ; one of the five 


powers (1815-1848), 344 ff. ; in 
sympathy with Holy Alliance, 
343 ; reactionary Bourbon mon¬ 
archy, 347 ; Charter of 1815, 
347 ; and Charles X, 347-348 ; 
Revolution of 1830, 347-350 ; 
constitutional Orleans mon¬ 
archy, 350 ff. ; Industrial Revo¬ 
lution in, 363 ; history from 
1830 to 1848, 385-387 ; cor¬ 
ruption and narrow electorate, 

386- 387 ; Revolution of 1848, 

387- 392 ; “ national work¬ 

shops,” 390-391 ; Louis Na¬ 
poleon president of Second Re¬ 
public, 392, 403 ; Second 

Empire, 403 ff. ; coup d’etat of 
1851, 403-404 ; despotism, 404- 
405 ; prosperity, 405-406 ; and 
Crimean War, 406 ; and Italian 
War of 1859, 407 ; see Louis 
Napoleon; and Franco-Prussian 
War, 420 ff. ; siege of Paris, 
422, 485-486 ; National As¬ 
sembly of 1871 and peace, 486 ; 
Commune of Paris, 486-489 ; 
establishment of Third Republic, 
490-495 ; attempts at mo¬ 
narchic restoration, 490-492 ; re¬ 
organization of society, 491 ; 
constitution of 1875, 492-493 ; 
Republicanism stable, 494 ; de¬ 
velopment to 1914, 495-504 ; 
struggle with church, 495—496 ; 
local government, 496-497 ; ad¬ 
ministrative courts, 497-498 ; 
education, 498 ; industry, 498- 
499 ; agriculture, 499 ; popula¬ 
tion, 499 ; a nation of little 
capitalists, 500 ; low level of 
politics, 501 ; Socialism in, 501 ; 
colonial empire, 501-504 ; in 
Africa, 553-554 ; in Asia, 556 ; 




16 


INDEX 


and Russ-Jap War, 569 ) and 
Dual Alliance, 569 ; and Triple 
Entente, 570. See World War 
and Peace Congress. 

Franciscans, 76. 

Franco-Prussian War, 420-422, 
485-486. 

Frankfort Assembly of 1848, 395- 
396. 

Franklin, Benjamin, and idea of 
written constitution in France, 
271. 

Franks, Clovis to Charlemagne, 
35-47. 

Frederick II of Prussia, 241 ff. ; 
contempt for morality, 249 ; a 
“ benevolent despot,” 249-250. 
Freedom of the Press, suppressed 
by Napoleon, 314-315 ; in Eng¬ 
land by reactionary Tory govern¬ 
ment after 1815, 429-430 ; in 
Russia in nineteenth century, 
582. 

French Revolution, 252 ff. ; abuses 
before, 252-259 ; spirit of change 
due to men of letters, 259-263 ; 
bankruptcy forces government 
to try reform (Turgot and 
Necker), 265-267 ; election of 
States General, 269 ; becomes 
National Assembly, 270 ; clash 
with king (Mirabeau’s defiance), 
272 ; Bastille falls, 272-273 ; 
Middle Class organize and seize 
authority, 274 ; abolition of 
privilege (August 4), 275 ; con¬ 
stitution making (1789-1791), 
276-282 ; Jacobins, 277 ; po¬ 
litical parties in Assembly, 277- 
278 ; constitution of 1791, 279- 
281 ; and the church, 281 ; 
land to the people, 282 ) war 
with European despots, 285- 


287 ; fall of Capetian mon¬ 
archy, 288-293 ; September 
Massacres, 291-292 ; Revolu¬ 
tion becomes a propaganda, 
292-293 ; Republic and man¬ 
hood suffrage, 292-293 ; execu¬ 
tion of Louis, 293 ; Constitution 
of Year I, 293-294 ; “ France 
girdled with foes,” 294 ; Du- 
mouriez’s treason, 294 ; Jacobins 
in power, 295 ; Girondists sup¬ 
pressed, by policy of Terror, 
296-300 ; constructive side, 300- 
301 ; dictatorship of Robes¬ 
pierre, 301-303 ; fall of Jaco¬ 
bins, 303-304 ; White Terror, 
304 ; the Directory, 304 ff. ; 
territorial gains in, 305. See 
Napoleon. 

Friars, 76. 

Frontenac, and attempt to intro¬ 
duce political assemblies in New 
France, 225. 

Fulton, Robert, 364. 

Ga-belle', the, 257. 

Gal-i-le'o, 179. 

Gal-lip'o-li, Battle of. 621. 
Gam-bet'ta, 485, 494, 495. 
Gar-i-bal'di, 411-412. 

Genghis Khan (jgn'gls kan), 235. 
George I, II, and III (of England), 
214 ; III, and parliamentary 
reform, 428. 

“ George Eliot,” 441. 

George (Lloyd), and World War, 
635 ; in Peace Congress, 679. 
Germ theory of disease, 564. 
German, term explained and re¬ 
stricted, 52-53. 

German Empire, founded in 1871, 
423 ; constitution and character^ 
505 ff. j and Alsace, 506 ; no 








INDEX 


17 


reapportionment, 506 ; the em¬ 
peror, 506-507 ; “ divine right,” 
512 ; and Prussia, 506-507 ; 
militarism and police rule, 507- 
511 ; Junkers, 509 ; “ Big Busi¬ 
ness,” 509 ; “ efficiency,” 509 ; 
city government, 510 ; army, 
512-513 ; compared with Eng¬ 
land, 513-514 ; colonial empire, 
519 ff. ; and Turkey, 521 ; and 
China, 522 ; hostility to United 
States, 524 ; in Africa after 
1884, 553-554 ; and Triple Al¬ 
liance, 568-569 ; wrecks pro¬ 
posals for disarmament and 
arbitration, 571, 573-574 ; am¬ 
bitions in Balkans and Asia, 
595 ; wills World War, 599 ff. ; 
war worship, 599-604 ; pulls 
the strings and forces war, 605- 
610 ; invasion of Belgium, 610 ; 
and England, 610-611 ; see 

World War; peace movement 
during war (Socialists), 650 ff. ; 
armistice and revolution, 662- 
663. 

German Republic, 675 ; and Peace 
Treaty of 1919, 686-688. 

Germanic Confederation, the 

(1814-1866), character, 336- 

337 ; under Metternich, 338- 
339 ; in abeyance in 1848, 395- 

397 ; restored by Austria, 397- 

398 ; final overthrow (Six 
Weeks’ War), 418. 

Germany, and Charlemagne, 46 ; 
term restricted, 52-53 ; political 
beginnings, 54-55 ; Saxon kings, 
86-87 ; Otto I and expansion, 

87 ; and Holy Roman Empire 
and Italy for three centuries, 

88 ; “ Fist law,” 88 ; kingship 
restored by Rudolph of Haps- 


burg, 118 ; Austrian domination 
through rest of Middle Ages, 
119 ; falls behind in movement 
for national union, 126 ; begins 
Protestant revolt, 137 ff. ; be¬ 
comes Lutheran in North, 142- 
144 ; remains Catholic in South, 
149 ; Thirty Years’ War, 174- 
175 ; ruin of, 176 ; Peace of 
Westphalia and loss of territory, 
and organization, 177-178 ; con¬ 
solidation by Napoleon into 38 
states (summary of political 
chaos before), 319-321 ; social 
reforms under French influence, 
322-323 ; and Congress of 
Vienna, 327 ; and following 
reaction, 334-336. See Germanic 
Confederation, Prussia, German 
Empire, German Republic. 

Gibraltar, lost by Spain, 233 ; 
siege by Spain repulsed, 247. 

Gilds, 97, 185, 255. 

Giorgione (jor-jo'na), 132. 

Girondists, 284, 293, 295-296. 

Gladstone, William E., 442-443 ; 
reform administration of 1868- 
1874, 456-457 ; offends Labor, 
457-458 ; criticizes Disraeli’s 
Turkish policy, 458 ; Third 
Reform Bill, 458-459 ; and 
Ireland, 462-463 ; adopts Home 
Rule plan, 463 ; defeated, 463- 
464 ; retires, 464 ; and the 
Boers, 472 ; last speech, against 
the Lords, 476. 

Goethe (ga/tS), 315. 

Gogol, 579. 

Goldsmith, 379. 

Good Hope, Cape, discovery, 220. 

Great Britain, 215. 

Greece, rising against Turkey in 
1821, 341, 592 ; Metternich 




18 


INDEX 


tries to repress, 345 ; inde¬ 
pendence, 346. See World War. 
Greek Empire (Byzantine), 90, 92, 
121 . 

Greek Fire, 41. 

Greek Language, study of, re¬ 
stored, 131, 132 ; influence upon 
recovery of Greek independence, 
345. 

Greeks, Ancient, 7 ; contrast with 
Oriental culture, 7-9 ; contribu¬ 
tions to civilization, 7-9 ; weak 
points in, 10 ; and Persia, 10. 
Gregory VII, Pope, 75. 
Grinde'cobbe, hero of 1381, 111. 
Guizot (ge-zo'), 348, 385-386, 388. 
Gunpowder, 116, 134. 

Gustavus Adolphus, 175-176. 

Habeas Corpus Act, 208. 

Hague Congresses, 571-573. 

Haig (hag), Sir Douglas, 634 and 

passim. 

Hampden, John, 193, 196-197. 
Hanseatic League, 99. 

HapsbiirG, Rudolph of, 118-119. 
HapsbiirGS, the, 118, 119, 145, 232, 
233 ; end of, see World War. 
Hargreaves, James, and the spin¬ 
ning jenny, 357-358. 

Harvey, William, and “ circulation 
of the blood,” 179. See Servetus. 
Hay, John, and “ open door,” 554 ; 

and Germany, 555. 

Hebrews, 7. See Jews. 

He-gi'ra, the, 40. 

Henry II of England, 78-80. 

Henry IV, V, VI, of England, 111- 

112 . 

Henry VII, 113. 

Henry VIII, 113, 153, 154, 155-158, : 
163. 

Henry IV of France, 172, 173, 174. 


Henry the Navigator, 219. 
Herzegovina (hgrt-s6-go-ve'na), 
561. 

HindenbiirG, 616, 635. 

HindenbiirG Line, the, 646. 
Hohenlinden, Battle of, 310. 
Hohenzollerns (ho-6n-ts6l'6ms), 
240, 241. 

Holland, see United Netherlands 
and Dutch Republic; 170 ; in¬ 
dependence, 177 ; under William 
of Orange, antagonist ot 
Louis XIV, 230 ff. ; and French 
Revolution, 294, 305 ; Kingdom 
under Louis Bonaparte, 319 ; 
annexed to France, 319 ; King¬ 
dom of Netherlands (with Bel¬ 
gium annexed) in 1814, 328 ; 
loss of much colonial empire 
during Napoleonic Wars, 328 ; 
loses Belgium in 1830, 350 ; 
and Revolution of 1848, 392 ; 
to-day, 539-540. 

“ Holy Alliance,” the, 341 ff. 

Holy Roman Empire, see Charle¬ 
magne; place in history after 
800 a.d., 50-51 ; restored in 
962 a.d., 87 ; popes and em¬ 
perors, 88 ; lapses, but restored 
by Hapsburgs, 118 ; an Austrian 
state from 1273 to French Revo¬ 
lution, 119 ; under Charles V, 
128 ; after Peace of Westphalia 
an open sham, 178 ; end in 1806, 
321. 

Home Rule. See Ireland. 

Hoover, Herbert C., 667-668. 

Huguenots (hu'gg-nots), 172-173, 
184, 224, 231 ; influence in 
America, 231, note. 

Hungarians, nomad invaders, 55. 
62 ; repulsed, 87 ; Christianized 
and settled, 87 ; and Turks, 121 ; 





INDEX 


19 


a conglomerate state, 393 ; 
Revolution of 1848, 393-395 ; 
failure of attempt at inde¬ 
pendence, 395. See Austria- 
Hungary. 

Hus, John, 117. 

Huxley, 441. 

“ Iconoclasts/’ 43-44. 

Imperial Federation, 475. 

Independents, the, “ Puritans of 
Puritans,” 187 ; in New Model, 
201 , 202 . 

India, in eighteenth century, 243 ; 
France and England in, 243- 
244 ; English crown colony, 
466-468. 

“ Indirect Tax,” term, 257, note. 

“ Indulgences,” and Reformation, 
138-140. 

Industrial Revolution, 352 ff. ; in 
agriculture in England, 354- 
355 ; in transportation (canals, 
turnpikes), 355-356 ; in tex¬ 
tiles, 356-360 ; steam and iron, 
361-362 ; and cotton supply, 
363 ; and steam transportation, 
363-366 ; and the workers’ 
lives, 370 ff. ; domestic system 
gives way to factory system, 

371- 373 ; and new capitalism, 

372- 373 ; growth of towns, 374- 

375 ; evil conditions in town 
life, 375 ff. ; in America in 1830, 
375-377 ; and child labor, 377- 
379 ; reaches France about 
1825, 387 ; Germany about 

1870, 509 ; Russia about 1890, 
583-584. See Inventions , Social¬ 
ism. 

“ Infantry,” 62. 

Initiative (the popular), in Switzer¬ 
land, 549-550. 


Innocent III, and the Albigenses, 

151. 

Inquisition, the Spanish, ISO- 

152. 

International Arbitration, before 
World War, 570-574. See 
League of Nations. 

International Disarmament, re¬ 
jected at Hague Congresses 
(German opposition), 572, 573- 
574. See League of Nations. 

Inventions, in general, 1-2 ; 
chipped stone, 2-3 ; in Stone 
Age, 3 ; copper and bronze, 
4-5 ; alphabet, 6 ; at close of 
Middle Ages (gunpowder, print¬ 
ing, mariner’s compass), 134 ; 
see Scientific Method; new period 
before French Revolution, 259- 
260 (and see Industrial Revolu¬ 
tion) ; beet sugar, 317 ; three 
great periods, after 1800, 563- 
564 ; and medicine, 565 ; air¬ 
ships, 566 ; in war, 615-616. 

Ireland, schools in eighth century, 
99 ; cruelty of English conquest, 
164 ; disestablishment of Eng¬ 
lish church, 457 ; review of 
history to 1700, 460 ; in eight¬ 
eenth century, 461 ; “ rack 

rent,” 461-462 ; Rebellion of 
1798, 462 ; the “ union ” and 
struggle for repeal, 462 ; Fenian 
conspiracies, 462 ; land reform 
begun by Gladstone, 463 ; Home 
Rule agitation, 463-464 ; ap¬ 
parent victory in 1914, 482 ; de¬ 
layed by World War, 483. 

I-re'ne, Empress, 48. 

Isabella, of Castile, 119. 

“ Italia Irredenta,” 527. 

Italy (after fall of Roman Empire 
in West), Justinian’s reconquest, 



20 


INDEX 


31 ; Lombard invasion, 32 ; 
shattered to fragments, 32 ; 
and Holy Roman Empire, 87, 
126 , battleground for France 
and Spain, 126 ; South falls to 
Spain, 126-128 ; North to Haps- 
burgs, 126-128; and Renais¬ 
sance, 130—133 ; commerce de¬ 
stroyed by discovery of new 
routes to Asia, 221 ; see Treaty 
of Utrecht; battleground in 
French Revolutionary wars, 305 ; 
Napoleon’s perfidy to, 306 ; 
under Napoleon, 319 ; restored 
in 12 states by Congress of 
Vienna, 327 ; Revolutions of 
1820 and 1830, 398-399 ; 

“ Youn g Italy,” 399 ; Revolu¬ 
tions of 1848, 398-400; failure 
honorable, 400-401 ; Sardinia 
grows into Kingdom of Italy, 
410-424 ; constitution, 525 ; 
social conditions, 525-526 ; 
colonies and imperialism, 526- 
527 ; “ Irredenta,” 527 ; 

struggle with papacy, 527-528 ; 
and Triple Alliance, 569 ; war 
with Turkey in 1913, 596 ; 

enters World War, 624 ; col¬ 
lapse, 647-648 ; victory on the 
Piave, 658 ; imperialism in 
Peace Congress, 683 ; annexa¬ 
tions, 683 ; and Fiume, 684. 

Jacobins, name, 277. See French 
Revolution. 

James I, of England, 188 ff. 

James II, 209. 

Japan, Westernized, 555 ; war 
with China, 555 ; with Russia, 
557-559 ; enters World War 
for plunder, 619 ; and Shantung 
m Peace Treaty, 688. 


Jefferson, Thomas, quoted on 
European kings, 267. 

Jemmapes (zha-map'), Battle of 
292. 

Jena (ya'na), Battle of, 317. 
Jesuits, 150. 

Jews, see Hebrews; persecuted in 
Russia, 582—583 ; and Poland 
in 1919, 677. 

Joan of Arc, 114. 

Joffre, and the Battle of the 
Marne, 614-615. 

Joseph II, of Austria, 250, 251. 

Jugo (yu'go)-Slavs. See South 

Slavs. 

Junkers (ytinners), 506, 509. 

Jury Trial, 80. 

Justinian Code, the, 31. 

Karlsbad Decrees, 338-339. 
Kar-ol'yi, 676. 

Kerensky, 644-645; asks world 
to recognize Bolshevists, 694. 
Kiau-chou (kyou'chou), 522, 556. 

See Shantung. 

King William’s War, 231-232. 

Kings of England, tables of, 153 
213. 

Knox, John, 162. 

Kolchak, Admiral, 692-694. 
Koniggratz (koen'Ig-grats), Battle 
of, 417. 

Ko-ran', the, 39. 

Ko-re'a, ceded by China to Japan, 
but secured by Russia, 555 ; 
and Russ-Jap War, 558, 559 
Kos-ci-iis'ko, 249. 

Kos-so'va, Battle of, 121. 

Kot'ze-bue, 338. * 

Kulturkampf, in France, 495-496 ; 
in German Empire, 514-515 ; 
! n oo Italy ’ 527-528 ; in Belgium, 
538-539 ; in Spain, 586. 







INDEX 


21 


Labor Legislation (English), 451- 
457 ; as to strikes, 457-458 ; 
in Australia and New Zealand, 
471-479, 481-482, 700-701. 

Labor Party, in England, 477. 

Lafayette, 261, 274, 289, 290, 291, 
348, 349. 

Laibach (li'baK), Congress at, 342, 
343. 

La-ka-nal', 301. 

Lamartine (la-mar-ten'), 386, 389- 
390. 

Langue-doc', 151. 

La S&Ue', 223. 

Lassalle', 515. 

Latimer, Bishop, 159. 

Latin, becomes “ dead,” 29 ; sole 
language of medieval learning, 
104 ; replaced in literatures by 
vernaculars, 104. 

Laud, Archbishop, 197. 

Lavoisier (la-vwa-zya'), 260. 

League of Nations, proposed by 
Woodrow Wilson in 1917, 640 ; 
organized (and character), 628- 
686 . 

Lechfeld (ISk'f&lt), Battle of, 87. 

Lelm'biirG - Styr'iim - Wil'helms - 
dorf, 320. 

Leipsig (lip'siK), Battle of, 325. 

Lenin (la-nen'), Nicholai, 587. 

Leo X, Pope, 140, 141. 

Leo the Isaurian, 43. 

Le-o-nar'do da Vinci (ven'chS), 
132. 

Le-pan'to, Battle of, 171. 

Letters of the Seal, 259. 

Leyden, relief of, and the Uni¬ 
versity, 167, 168. 

Liaou Yang (le-ou yang'), Battle 
of, 558. 

Lich-nows'ky, Prince, 598, 604 

and note, 608. 


Liebknecht (lSp'kngKt), Karl, de¬ 
nounced Austria's ultimatum, 
605 ; denounced Kaiser’s plan 
for World War, 609, note ; 
attempts revolution after the 
war, 674-675. 

Limerick, “ City of the Broken 
Treaty,” 461. 

Little Englanders, and Imperial¬ 
ism, 474. 

Livia (Livonia), 677, 678. 

Lloyd George, David, 477 ; bud¬ 
get of 1909, 478-479 ; demand 
for social justice, 567-568. See 
World War and Peace Congress. 

Lollards, the, 108, 117. 

Lombards, 32, 44, 45, 47. 

Long Day, the, in labor, 375-377. 

Long Parliament, the, 198 ff. 

Lords, House of, reduced to sub¬ 
ordinate position in struggle for 
First Reform Bill, 433 ; ques¬ 
tion of mending or ending, 448 ; 
Gladstone’s challenge, 476 ; con¬ 
flict with Asquith’s 1906 ministry, 
477-479 ; veto taken away, 480. 

Lorraine, seized by Louis XIV, 230. 
See Alsace-Lorraine. 

Louis IX, of France, 85. 

Louis XI, 114. 

Louis XIV, 224, 230-235. 

Louis XV, 259, 268. 

Louis XVI, 263-293, passim. 

Louis XVII, 325, note. 

Louis XVIII, 325, 330-331. 

Louis Philippe, 350, 385-388. 

Lou-vain', 610. 

Lowell, James Russell, on Vol¬ 
taire, 261. 

Ludendorff, 635 and passim 

Lusitania, the, 631-633. 

Lutheran Church, organized, 142 ; 
wins northern Europe, 142, 144. 




22 


INDEX 


Luther, Martin, 137, 137-146. 
Liitzen, Battle of, 175. 

Lyons, 296, 297. 

Macaulay, on French war-methods 
in age of Louis XIV, 232. 
Mac-Ma-Tzon, President of France, 
and monarchic plots, 491-492. 

Ma-gen'ta, Battle of, 407. 

Magna Carta, 80-81. 

Magyars (mSd'ySrz). See Hun¬ 
gary. 

Mahomet the Conqueror, and 

Constantinople, 121. 

Majuba (ma-yu'ba) Hill, Battle of, 
472. 

Malplaquet (mal-pla-ka/), 476. 
Malta, siege of, 171 ; secured by 
England, 328. 

Manchester Doctrine, 381. 
Manchuria, 556, 558-559. 
Mannerheim, 692. 

Manor, in feudal age, 65-70. 

Marat (ma-ra/), 275, 286. 

Marathon, Battle of, 10. 

Marcus Aurelius, 15. 

Marengo, Battle of, 310. 

Maria The-re'sa, 242. 

Marie Antoinette (an-twa-nSt/) 
263. 

Mariner’s Compass, 134, 221. 
Marlborough, 233, 234. 

Marne, First Battle of, 615. 
Marseillaise (mar-sa-ygs'), the 
288. 

Marston Moor, Battle of, 201-202. 
Marx, Karl, 383, 384. 

Mary of Burgundy, 124, 125. 

Mary Tudor, Queen of England 
158-159. 

Maximilian, of Austria, failure, 
119 ; marries Mary of Bur¬ 
gundy, 125. 


Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico 
407. 

Mayfields, in Frankish state, 34 
49. 

Mayors of the Palace, 37, 45. 
Mazzini (mat-se'ne), Joseph, and 
Young Italy, 399; in 1848 399- 
400 ; fine challenge in defeat, 
400-401 ; condemns entrance 
into Crimean War, 409. 
Methodist Movement in England 
214-215. 

Metric System, adopted by French 
Revolutionists, 300. 

Metternich (nte), rule of, 324 ff. ; 
and the German Confederation, 
336-337 ; and the Holy Alliance, 
342-344 ; overthrow, 392. 

Metz, seized by France from Ger¬ 
many, 145 ; siege by Prussians, 
422 ; ceded by Germany, 687. 
Mexico, and Louis Napoleon, 407. 
Michael Angelo (ml'kei an'jg-lo) 
132. 

Middle Ages,” term explained, 
50 ; intellectual marks of, 129. 
Militarism, 511 and passim. See 
Armaments. 

Miliiikof, 587, 644 
Milton, John, 207. 

Ministerial Government (“ re¬ 
sponsible ” government). See 
Cabinet Government. 
Min-ne-sing'ers, 104. 

Mirabeau (me-ra-bo'), 271, 278. 

“ Mittel Europa,” 595, 624. 
Mobilization, explained, 608-609. 
Mohammed, 39. 

Mohammedanism, origin, 38-39 ; 
growth, 39—41 ; repulse from 
Constantinople in eighth cen- 
tui X 41 ; repulse at Tours, 42 ; 
division into rival states, 42 * 








INDEX 


23 


in eleventh century, culture, 
88-90 ; Turkish leadership, 92. 
See Crusades. 

Moliere (mo-lyar'), 234. 

Moltke, General von, 415, 421. 

Monasteries, 35-36 ; dissolution 
of, in England, 154-156. See 
Friars. 

Mongols, 218-219. 

Monroe Doctrine, origin, 344. 

Mont-caZm', 243. 

Mon-te-ne'gro, 591. 

More, Sir Thomas, 134, 157 ; 

quoted on decaj' of yeomanry, 
182-183. 

Moreau (mo-ro'), 310. 

Morgarten, Battle of, 123. 

Mo-ris'coes, expulsion of, 171. 

Morocco, 503. 

Mos-cow, 236, 324. 

Mukden (mook'dSn), Battle of, 
558. 

Mii-raf', 319. 

Muskets, introduction, 175-176. 

Nantes, Edict of, 173 ; revoked, 
231. 

Napoleon Bonaparte, saves Direc¬ 
tory, 304 ; campaigns in Italy, 
305 ; character, 306-308 ; fail¬ 
ure in Egypt, 308 ; overthrows 
Directory, becomes First Consul, 
309 ff. ; Code, 312-313 ; pleb¬ 
iscites, 314 ; despotic rule, 
314-315 ; plans universal do¬ 
minion, 315 ; later wars (1803- 
1805), 315-317 ; failure at Bou¬ 
logne, 316 ; Ulm, Austerlitz, 
and Jena, 316-317 ; Peninsula 
campaigns, 319 ; consolidation 
of Germany, 320-322 ; greatest 
power (1810), 323 ; invasion 
of Russia, 324 ; fall, 324-325 ; 


return from Elba, 330 ; Water¬ 
loo, 331. 

Napoleon II, term explained, 404. 

Napoleon III, Louis Napoleon, 
president Second French Re¬ 
public, 391-392, 402 ff. ; French 
garrison in Rome, 400 ; plots 
against Republic, 402-403 ; 
“ Crime of 1851,” 403-404; des¬ 
potic rule, 404-405 ; prosperity 
of France under, 405-406 ; wars 
of, 406-408 ; tricked by Bis¬ 
marck, 420 ; tricked into war 
with Prussia, 421 ; inefficiency 
of his government, 422 ; fall, 422. 

Nar-va, Battle of, 328. 

Nase'by, Battle of, 201. 

National Workshops. See France 
for 1871. 

Nationality, term explained, 335, 
note. 

Na-va-ri'no (ri-re), Battle of, 346. 

Necker, minister of finance, 264- 
265, 266, 272, 273. 

Nelson, Admiral, 308, 315, 317. 

Netherlands, in Middle Ages, 124 ; 
passes to Hapsburgs, 125 ; re¬ 
volt against Philip II, 166 ff. ; 
character of war, 167 ; and 
William the Silent, 167 ff. ; 
relief of Leyden, 167-168 ; Eng¬ 
lish aid, 168 ; and Spanish 
Armada, 168 ; southern prov¬ 
inces (later Belgium) remain 
Spanish, 168 ; northern prov¬ 
inces (Holland) independent, 
168-170 ; prosperity during war, 
170 ; (for Dutch Republic from 
this time, see Holland) ; Spanish 
Netherlands become Austrian 
Netherlands, at Utrecht, 233 ; 
conquered by France, 292. See 
Belgium. 



24 


INDEX 


Newfoundland, lost by France at 
Utrecht, 233. 

“New Monarchies,” at end of 
Middle Ages, 125-126. 

Newton, Sir Isaac, 259. 

New Zealand, pioneer in de¬ 
mocracy, 471. 

Nice (nes), annexed to France, 305 ; 
restored to Sardinia in 1814, 
328 ; ceded to France in 1859, 
407. 

Nihilists (Russian), 581, 584. 

Nile, Battle of, 308. 

Nl-velle, French general, 645, 
646. 

Normal School, the first, in French 
Revolution, 300. 

Normandy, term explained, 56. 
Norman Conquest, of England, 
77-78. 

Norsemen, 55-56, 59. 

North German Confederation 

(1867), 418 ; merged in Ger¬ 
man Empire, 423. 

Norway, Swedish at Congress of 
Vienna, 330, 541-542 ; Diet at 
Eidvold, 542 ; Dual Monarchy 
(with Sweden), 542 ff. ; contrast 
with Sweden, 543 ; struggle for 
self-government, 543-544 ; in¬ 
dependence, 544 ; woman 
suffrage, 544-545. 

Nova Scotia, lost by France, 233. 
No-va'ra, Battle of, 400, 408. 

O’Connell, Daniel, and the House 
of Lords, 448. 

Old Age Pensions. See Social 
Insurance. 

Old Sarum, 426. 

Olmiitz, Prussian humiliation at 
397. 

Ordeal, Trial by, 31-33. 


‘ Orleans Monarchy. See Louis 
Philippe. 

Oscar II, of Sweden and Norwav 
543. 

Otto I, of Germany and Holy 
Roman Empire, 87. 

Owen, Robert, 370 ; one of the 
early Socialists, 382-383. 

Oxford Reformers, the, 133-134. 

Painting, Medieval, 104 ; Renais¬ 
sance, 132. 

Pankhurst, Sylvia, 484. 

Papacy, rise of, 42-43; split 
with Greek Empire, 43-44 ; 
head of Western Christendom, 
44 ; growing temporal power in 
eighth century, 44—45 ; threat¬ 
ened by Lombards, 45; Frankish 
aid creates the Papal States, 45, 
46 ; in feudal age, 74-75 ; at 
close of Middle Ages, 115 ff. • 
struggle with England and 
France, 113-115; “Babylonian 
Captivity,” 115-116 ; and Coun¬ 
cil of Constance, 117-118 ; and 
Kingdom of Italy, 528; and 
World War, 528. 

Papal States, 42-45, 47, 528. 
Parlement (par-lg-man'), of Paris, 
demands the States General, 266. 
Parliament, English, beginning, to 
Model Parliament of 1295, 81- 
83 ; division into two Houses, 
83-85 ; deposes Edward II, 
105 ; growth of power under 
Lancastrians, 111-112; decline 
under Tudors, 113 ; but forms 
preserved, 185-186 ; under 
Elizabeth, 188 ; struggle with 
first Stuarts, 188-203 ; during 
Commonwealth, 203 ff. ; under 
later Stuarts, 206 ff. ; ga i ns 










INDEX 


25 


supremacy over crown in Revo¬ 
lution of 1688, 211-212. See 
Cabinet Government and England 
for parliamentary reform in 
nineteenth and twentieth cen¬ 
turies. 

Pas-teur', and germ theory of 
disease, 564. 

Pavia, Battle of, 128. 

Peace Congress (Versailles) of 
1919, 674-692. 

Peasant Rising, of 1381 (English), 
108-110. 

Peasant Revolt, in Germany (1525), 
142 ; followed by White Terror, 
143. 

Peel, Sir Robert, and Corn Law 
repeal, 453-455. 

Pershing, John J., 658. 

Persia, contributions to ancient 
civilization, 6-7, 10 ; and Euro¬ 
pean aggression, 554 ; constitu¬ 
tional government, 561 ; Anglo- 
Russian agreement of 1910, 569- 
570 ,' virtually English, 691. 

Pe-rii-gi'no (gi = ge), 132. 

Pet am', General, 646. 

Peter “ the Great,’’ 237—239. 

Petition of Right, the English, 
194-195. 

Pe'trarch, 130-131. 

Pet'ro-grad, founded as St. Peters¬ 
burg, 237. 

Philip II, of Spain, 145, 158, 159, 
163-168, 169-171. 

Philip Augustus, of France, 85. 

Philip the Fair, 85 ; and the States 
General, 86. 

Phoe-mc'ians, part in civilization, 

6 . 

Pi-a've, Battle of, 658. 

Piedmont, term explained, 341. 
See Sardinia. 


Pilgrimage of Grace, the, and 
Henry VIII’s “ frightfulness,” 
155-156. 

Pilgrimages, medieval, 92. See 
Crusades. 

Pip'pin the Short, first Carolingian, 
45 ; anointed, 45. 

Pitt, William, the Elder, and wars 
of Frederick II, 243 ; and need 
of Parliamentary Reform, 428. 

Pitt, William, the Younger, and 
Parliamentary Reform, 428. 

Pius IX, Pope, 399. 

Plas'sey, Battle of, 244. 

Pleb'i-scites, in France, of Na¬ 
poleon I, 314 ; of Napoleon III, 
404. 

Pliny, Latin author, 15. 

Poland, Partitions, 247-248 ; re¬ 
stored in part by Napoleon, 
321 ; united to Russia by 
Congress of Vienna, 329 ; Re¬ 
public of (1919), 677. 

Political Economy, the, of Adam 
Smith, 381. 

Political Parties, germs in England 
in seventeenth century, 189 ; 
Whigs and Tories, 208-209. 

“ Politics,” term defined, 63, note. 

Polo, Marco, 219. 

Pope, term explained, 42. See 
Papacy. 

Port Arthur, 556, 557 ; siege of, 
558. 

Portugal, origin, 119 ; seized tem¬ 
porarily by Spain, 166 ; loses 
colonies in East to Holland, 166 ; 
building of colonial empire, 219- 
220 ; and Napoleon, 318 ; sum¬ 
mary to 1900, 536 ; Republic 
of, 537. 

Postage, Penny, in 1840, 453. 

Prax-it'e-les, 9. 

j. 




INDEX 


. 26 


Presbyterianism, in Scotland, 162. 
Printing, invention, 134. 
Protestant, name explained, 144 ; 
Protestantism and private judg¬ 
ment, 141, 146. 

Pmssia, colonized by Germans, 87, 
240 ; acquired by Brandenburg, 
240 ; independent kingdom 
under Hohenzollerns, 241 ; 
growth to Frederick II, 240-241 ; 
under Frederick II, 242, 249- 
250 ; “ profitable ” wars, 242 ; 
and French Revolution, see 
French Revolution; and Na¬ 
poleon, 317 ; reforms of Stein, 
322-323 ; War of Liberation, 
324-325 ; one of “ Allies ” 
against Napoleon, 325 ff. ; at 
Congress of Vienna, 327 ff. ; 
gains Pomerania, Rhine dis¬ 
tricts, and Saxony, 329-331 ; 
promised constitution betrayed, 
336—338 ) in 1848, 395—396 hu¬ 
miliated by Austria, 397-398 ; 
growth into Germany, 413 ff.; 
army, 414—415 ; and Bismarck, 
413 ff. ; “ trilogy of wars/’ 

414-423 ; wins Sleswig, 417 ; 
excludes Austria from Germany, 
417 ; annexes Hanover and 
other territory, 418 ; review 
of growth, 418 ; Franco-Prussian 
War, 421 ff. ; and German Em¬ 
pire, 422-423, 506-507. See 
Bismarck. 

Prussian Army, 414. See Mili¬ 
tarism. 

Piil-ta'va, Battle of, 238. 

Puritanism, 186 ; factions in, 186- 
187 ; and political liberty, 
187 ff. ; decline after English 
Restoration, 207 ff. 

Pym, John, 198 ff. 


Quebec, founded, 202. 

Racine (ra-cen'), 234. 

Railway. See Steam, Electricity. 
Raleigh, Sir Walter, and America, 

225. 

Ramillies (ra-me'y&), Battle of, 233. 
Raphael (raf'a-gl), 132. 

Ra-ven'na, 44, 45. 

Reed, Major Walter, and Yellow 

Fever extinction, 565. 
Referendum, the Swiss, 549. (In 
French Revolution, 294. See 

Plebiscites.) 

Reformation, the Protestant, 

137 ff. ; in Germany, 137-145 ; 
in Switzerland and France, 145- 
149 ; in England, 153-164. See 
Counter-Reformation and Re¬ 
ligious Wars. 

Reichstag (rlKs'taG), the German, 
505. 

“ Rei & n of Terror,” the, in French 
Revolution, 298-299 ; discussed, 
300-301. 

Religious Wars, of the Reformation 
period, 166 ff. 

Renaissance, character, 129-130 ; 
in Italy, 130-132 ; pagan side, 
132 ; in Northern Europe, 133- 
134. 

Richelieu (re-shSl-yfi'), Cardinal, 
174. 

Rights of Man, Declaration of 

279-280. 

Ro'bes-pzerre, 274, 278, 286, 296- 
297, 302, 303. 

Roman Catholic Church, in feudal 

age, 72 ff. See Christianity. 
Roman Empire, established, 11 ; 
lands and peoples, 12 ; fife 
and work under the Early 
Empire (to 192 a.d.), 12-17 ; 










INDEX 


27 


decline in third century, 19 ; 
centralized despotism, 19 ; “ re¬ 
forms ” of Diocletian, 19 ; causes 
of “ fall,” 19-25 ; and Chris¬ 
tianity, 25-26 ; overthrow in 
West, see Teutons. For the 
Eastern World, see Greek Em¬ 
pire. 

Roman Law. See Justinian Code. 
Romance, term explained as ap¬ 
plied to peoples or languages, 
177. 

Rome, Ancient, 10-11. See Ro¬ 
man Empire. 

Romilly, and penal reform, 430- 
431, 450. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, on England 
and the American Revolution, 
246 ; and Kaiser William in 
relation to Venezuela, 524 ; and 
Treaty of Portsmouth, 558. 
Roumanians, 590; enter World 
War and collapse, 636. See 
Balkans. 

Rousseau (roo-so'), 262. 

Ruskin, John, 441. 

Russell, Lord John, 431, 445. 
Russia, early history, 235-237 ; 

“ Europeanized ” by Peter “ the 
Great,” 237-239 ; territorial 
growth, 238-239, 247-248 ; Til¬ 
sit, 317 ; Napoleon’s invasion, 
323-324 ; one of the “ Allies ” 
against Napoleon, 325 ff. ; and 
Congress of Vienna — plunder, 
327-329 ; see Holy Alliance; 
crushes Hungary in 1849, 395 ; 
interferes to rob Japan in 1895, 
555 ; advance into Manchuria 
(Port Arthur), 556 ; war with 
Japan, 557-559 ; and Dual 
Alliance, 569 ; and Triple 
Entente, 570 ; review of terri¬ 


torial advance, 575-577 ; area 
and population in 1910, 577 ; 
rivalry with England in Asia, 
577 ; subject races, 578 ; au¬ 
tocracy, 578 ff. ‘ revolutionary 
agitation in nineteenth century, 
578, 584 ; Slavophilism, 579- 
581 ; emancipation of serfs, 
580 ; Industrial Revolution and 
Socialism, 584 ; First Russian 
Revolution (1906), 584-589 ; 

and World War opening, 608- 
609 ; treason in, 620 ; lack of 
industrial organization, 621 ff. ; 
recovery in 1916, 636 ; Revolu¬ 
tions of 1917, 644-645. See 
Bolsheviki, Peace Congress. 
Russo-Japanese War, 557-559. 
Russo-Turkish War, 593. 

Saar Valley, settlement regarding, 
at Peace Congress, 686-687. 

Sa-do'wa, Battle of, 417. 

St. Bartholomew, Massacre of, 172, 
173. 

St. Francis, 76. 

St. John, Knights of, 93 ; and 
Siege of Malta, 171,[note. 

St. Just, ideals in French Revolu¬ 
tion, 296-297, 302-303. 

St. Petersburg. See Petrograd. 
Saint-Simon, 382. 

Salamis, 10. 

Sal-o-ni'(ne)ki, Allies at, in World 
War, 662 and passim. 

San Stef'a-no, Peace of, 593. 
Sardinia, Kingdom of, and Revolu¬ 
tion of ’48, 399-400 ; expansion 
into Italy, 408-413. 

Sa-voy', 305, 328, 407. 

Scheid'e mann, Philip, 675. 
Schoolmen, the method of, 100- 
101 . 










28 


INDEX 


Scientific Method (experiment, 
etc.), born in sixteenth century, 
178-179. 

Scotland, personal union with Eng¬ 
land, 197, note ; Laud and 
Episcopacy, 197 ; and the 
Covenant, 198 ; rises against 
Charles I, 198 ; “ Union ” 

with England, 215. 

Scott, Sir Walter, 441. 

Secret Treaties, the, of World 
War, 650 ff. 

Sedan (s6-d6n'), Battle of, 422. 
Sem'paeh, Battle of, 123. 

“ Self-determination ” by Italians, 
in 1859, 413. See Fourteen 

Points. 

Separatists. See Independents. 
September Massacres, the, in 
^ Paris, 291 ; discussed, 298-300. 
Serbs, see Slavs; conquered by 
Turks, 121 ; history to 1800, 
591 ; to 1900, 593 ; and Austrian 
and German ambitions in Bal¬ 
kans, 594-595 ; hostility to 
Austria, 595 ; and World War 
^ 606-608, 617. See South Slavs’ 
Serfdom, in later Roman history, 
23-24 ; under feudal system, 
60, 66-70 ; disappears in Eng¬ 
land, 107-110 ; confirmed in 
Germany after 1525, 143 ; in 
France at 1789, 253-254 ; abol¬ 
ished in France, 275 ; and in 
much of Central Europe by 
Napoleon, 322 ; restored after 
Waterloo, 334 ; vanishes after 
’48, west of Russia, 392, 402. 
See Russia , “ Emancipation/’ 
Ser-ve'tiis, martyrdom of, MS- 
149 ; and discovery of circula¬ 
tion of the blood, 148-149. 

Seven Years’ War, the, 242-243. 


Shaftesbury. See Ashley. 
Shakspere, 165. 

Shan-tiing', German intrusion into, 
572 ; betrayed to Japan, 688. 
Ship-money, in England, 196-197. 
Siam, 553, 554, 560. 

Siciiy, Kingdom of (and Naples), 
126 ; passes to France and then 
to Spain, and to the Hapsburgs, 
126-128. 

Sieyes (se-a-yas'), 263, 310. 

Simon of Montfort, 82-83. 

Six Weeks’ War, the, 417. 

Slavery, in Roman Empire, 20 ; 

gives way to serf labor, 23, 24. 
Slavophilism, 581-583. 

Slavs, in southeastern Europe, 
28—29 ; and Charlemagne, 47 ; 
threaten Western Europe, 55. 
See Russia, Serbs, Bulgaria, Bo¬ 
hemia. 

Sleswig, and Danish War, 416- 
417 ; seized by Prussia, 418 ; 
attempts to Prussianize, 518- 
519 ; and plebiscites after World 
War, 688. 

Smuts, Jan, 689. 

Social Insurance, English, in 1908- 
1911, 481-482 ; in Germany 
under Bismarck, 516-517. 

“ Social Justice/’ demand for, 
566-569 ; after World War, 700 
Socialism, rise, 382; modern, 
383-384 ; weak side of, 384 ; 
and Revolution of ’48 in France' 
387 ff. ; in France to-day, 501 ; 
m Germany, 515-518 ; in 
Russia, 584. See Bolsheviki. 
S61-fer-i'(e)no, Battle of, 407. 
Somme, Battle of, 635. 

Sonderbund (zon'dgr-bunt), 546. 
South Africa, see Cape Colony; 
after 1815, 471 ff. ; self-govern- 










INDEX 


29 


ment in 1870, 470 ; Boer States 
in, 470-471 ; Boer Wars, 472- 
473 ; England’s wise treatment 
afterward, 472-473 ; federal 
union, 474. 

South Slavs, new state, organized 
after World War, 676. See 
Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegro. 
Spain, Vandals and Goths in. 28 , 
conquered by Mohammedan 
Arabs, 41 ; “ Africa begins at 
the Pyrenees,” 119 ; reconquest 
by Christian princes, in 800 
years’ crusade, 119 ; consolida¬ 
tion, 119-120 ; greatest Euro¬ 
pean power, under Philip II, 

166 ; struggle with the Dutch, 

167 ff. ; defeat of Armada by 
English, 168 ; expulsion of 
Moriscoes, 170-171 ; decay, 
171, 222 ; acquisition of Amer¬ 
ica, 221-222 ; Hapsburg rulers 
give way to French Bourbons, 

232 ; loses Gibraltar to England, 
and Netherlands and Italian 
possessions to Austria at Utrecht, 

233 ; loses Florida, 244 ; receives 
West Mississippi Valley, 244 ; 
seized by Napoleon and War of 
Liberation, 340 ; Constitution 
of 1812, 340 ; loss of Spanish 
America and Revolution of 1820, 
341 ; absolutism restored by 
Holy Alliance, and following 
White Terror, 343 ; and ’48, 
392 ; summary for 1800-1914, 
531-535 ; Republic under Cas- 
telar, 532-533 ; new constitu¬ 
tional monarchy of 1873, 533- 

534 ; loss of colonial empire, 

535 ; church and state, 535-536. 
Spanish America, and Holy Al¬ 
liance, 344-345. 


Spanish-American War, the, 535. 

Spanish Revolution of 1820, 340 ff. 

Spenser, Edmund, 164, 165. 

Spinning industry, revolution in, 
about 1775, 356-358. 

Stael, Madame de, and Napoleon, 
314. 

Stam-bii-lows'ki, 690. 

Stanley, Henry, explorer, 552. 

States General (Estates General), 
origin and decay, 86. See 

French Revolution. 

Steamboat, 364-365. 

Steam Engine, 361-362 ; in 

France only after 1815, 387. 

Steam Railway, 365 ff. 

Stein (shtln), Baron von, 322-323, 
336. 

Stephenson, George, 365. 

Stevens, John, Ameiican inventor, 
365. 

Stiles, Dr. Charles W., and hook¬ 
worm, 565. 

Stone Age, the, 3-4. 

Stor-thing, Norwegian, 188 ff. 

Stuart kings, in England, 188 ff. 
and table on 213. 

Suez Canal, and England in 
Egypt, 468-469. 

Suffragettes, 483-484. See 
Woman Suffrage. 

Sun Yat Sen, Chinese patriot, 562. 

Sweden, 55 ; conquers east 
Baltic coast, 55 ; south Baltic 
coast, 177 ; loses east Baltic 
up to Finland, to Russia, 239 ; 
loses Finland and Pomerania 
at Congress of Vienna, and 
gains Norway, 328-330 ; dual 
monarchy, 542 ff. ; accedes to 
Norwegian independence, 544 ; 
constitution and woman suffrage, 
545. 




30 


INDEX 


Switzerland, origin and history tc 
French Revolution, 121-123, 
145-147, 177 ; Helvetic Re¬ 
public, 308 ,' reorganized loosely 
in 1814 ; and neutrality guar¬ 
anteed, 328 ; sole Republic in 
Europe, 332, 546 ■ Sonderbund 
War, 546—547 ; Constitution of 
1848, 547-548 ; direct legislation, 
549-550 ; place in history, 551. 

Tacitus, and Teutons, 27-28. 
Talleyrand, at Congress of Vienna 
329. 

Tan-nen-berg, Battle of, 616. 
Tartars, invasions of Europe by, 235. 
Telescope, invention of, 134. 
Templars, Knights, 93. 

Tennyson, Alfred, 441. 

Teuton, term explained, 52-53. 
Teutonic Barbarians, peaceful in¬ 
fusion into Roman Empire, 20 • 
home east of Rhine, conditions 
in, 27-28 ; conquest of Western 
Europe, 28 ; fused with remains 
of Roman culture, 29 ; law 
codes adopted, 31-32 ; political 
institutions modified by the con¬ 
quest, 34 ; a new chance for 
democracy, 34. 

Teutonic Order, Knights of. 93 

240, 

Thackeray, 441. 

Thiers (ty-ar'), the king reigns 
but does not govern, 348 ; 
leader of Liberals (1830-1848), 
285 ; moderate demands in ’48, 
386-387 ; opposes Franco- 
Prussian War, 421 ; and peace 
terms, 486 ; President of Third 
Republic, 490-491. 

Thirty Years’ War, the, in Ger¬ 
many, 174-176. 


j Tilsit, Peace of, 317. 

Tin-to-ret'to, 132. 

Titian (tish'an), 132. 

Togo, Admiral, 558. 

Tours (toor), Battle of, 41-42. 
Towns, in Roman Empire, 12-13 ; 
preserve civilization after Bar¬ 
barian conquest, 30 ; destruction 
in North, 35 ; survive in South, 
ib.; growth of, after Crusades, 
94-96 ; medieval life in, 96-99 ; 
leagues of, 99 ; and Industrial 
Revolution, 372-375 and passim. 
Trade Unions, early, i n England, 
443-444. 

Tra-fal'gar, Battle of, 315-317. 
Tran-syFva'ni-a, 590. 
Trans-Siberian Railway, 556, 576. 
Transubstantiation, 107 ; Luther 

and Zwingli on, 146. 

Trent, Council of, 140, note, 150. 
Trev'i-t/iick, Richard, and steam 
motor, 365. 

Tri-este', 527. 

Triple Alliance, 568-569. See 
Bismarck, World War. 

Triple Enten'te. See Dual Al¬ 
liance. 

Tripoli, seized by Italy, 527. 
Trop-pau, Congress of, 342. 
Trou-ba-dours, 104. 

Tudors, 113 ; table of, 153. 

Tunis, and France and Italy, 502- 
503, 527. 

Tiir'gen-iev, 579. 

Tur-goF, 264. 

Turks, first appear, 92 ; and 
Crusades, 92 ff. ; South-east 
Europe and Constantinople, 
121 ; Battle of Lepanto, 171 ; 
and Armenian Massacres of 
95, 521-522 ; and Germany. 
522 ; Young Turks’ Revolution, 









INDEX 


31 


561 ; loss of territory, 561. See 
Balkans, World War, Peace 
Congress. 

Tyndal, 441. 

Ulm, Battle of, 316. 

Ulster, and Irish problem, 412-413, 
461. 

United States of America, see 

America, American Revolution, 
and Inventions; becomes World 
Power, 554 ; and Germany, 
524-554-555 ; and World War, 
628-637, 638-643 ; Wilson’s 
War Message, 641-642 ; swift 
preparation, 648-649, 651 ff. ; 
turns tide in 1918, 658 ff. ; war 
efficiency, 664-673 ; and Peace 
Congress, which see. 

Universities, medieval, 100, 101 ; 
opposed to Renaissance, 131 ; 
captured by Humanism, 132. 

Utopia, quoted, 134. 

Utrecht, Peace of, 233. 

Valmy, Battle of, 292. 

Vane, Sir Harry, 198, 203, 204. 

Van Eycks (Iks), the, and discovery 
of oils, 132. 

Vendee (vSn-da/), revolt in, 93, 
296. 

Venice, champion of Christendom, 
121 ; betrayed to Austria by 
Napoleon, 305-306 ; by Na¬ 
poleon III, 409 ; won by Italy, 
457. 

Verde, Cape, name explained, 219 
and note. 

Verdun, Battle of, 634-635. 

Verdun, Treaty of, 54. 

Verona, Congress of, 343. 

Victor Emmanuel II, 408, 409. 

Victorian Age, the, 439-464. 


Vienna, Congress of, 327-351. 

Villa, a Roman, 21-22 ; copied by 
Teutons, 35. 

Villeins, 60. 

Vladivostock (vla-dyS-vos-tSk'), 
576. • 

Voltaire, 260-26L 

Wage System, in industry. See 
Factory System. 

Wai-hei-wai (wi-ha'wl), 556. 

Wallenstein (val'l6n-stln), 175. 

“ War of 1812 ,” 318. 

Wars of the Roses, 113. 

Wat the Tyler, 109. 

Watling Street, 59. 

Waterloo, 331. 

Watt, James, and steam engine, 
361, 362. 

Weaving, Revolution in, 360. 

Wellington, Duke of, 331, 343, 43L 

Wentworth, Thomas, 197. 

Wesley, John, 215. 

Westphalia, Peace of, 176-177. 

White Terrors, in England in 1831, 
108 ; in Germany after 1525, 
143 ; in France in 1795, 304 ; 
in Naples, 343 ; in Spain in 
1822, 343 ; in France after ’48, 
391 ; in France in 1871, 489 ; 
in Germany after World War, 
676 ; in Russia, 692. 

Whitney, Eli, 360. 

William I, of Prussia, in ’48, 395, 
413 ; becomes king, 413 ; plans 
and success, 414-415 ; and Ems 
incident, 421 ; Emperor and 
divine right, 512. 

William II, of Germany, 512-513, 
520-524. See World War. 

William of Orange (William III of 
England), 204, 210, 230-231. 

William the Silent, 167 ff. 



32 


INDEX 


William Tell, myth of, 123. 

Wilson, Woodrow, President of 
the United States, and World 
War, which see ; at Pa*ris, 
679 ff. ; and Fiume, 684. 
Winthrop, John, on England in 
seventeenth century, 134 . 

Wolfe, James, 243. 

Women, in Roman Empire, 15 ; 
in French Revolution, new rights, 
300 ; votes for, proposed in 1867 
in England, 445 ; suffrage won, 

483, 484, 540, 544-545, 589* 

675. 

World War, the Balkan seed 

ground, 590-598 ; Germany 
wills it, 599-604; occasion, 

605-609 ; Germany forces on, 
609. ff. ; aims of Germany and 
of England, 611-612 ; by years 
and campaigns (chs. xlvi-1), 


614- 663 ; methods of warfare, 

615- 616 ; “ frightfillness,” 624 ff • 
English navy, 619 ; and United 
States, 628-633. See Peace 
Congress. 

Worms (vormz), Diet of, 141 , 142 . 
Writing, picture, 3 ; rebus stage, 
4. See Alphabet. 

Wyclif, John, 107-108, 117. 

Yalu (ya-loo'), Battle of, 558. 

Year, the, discovered, 5 . 

Young, Arthur, 253, 259. 

Young Italy, 399. 

Young Turks, 561. 

Ypres, First Battle of, 618. 

Ypres, Second Battle of, 622 
Yuan Shih Kai, 562. 

Zabem Incident, the, 507-509 
Zwingli, 145-146. 









^edwuuiea using tne Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: wav 

- V .2002 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 







































